NILIF and pack leadership

Power differentials exist between dogs. Those power differentials are not most usefully understood in terms of classic dominance theory OR stress/predatory drives.

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.

I still think that preditory behavior is an isolated behavior.  How do you explain it when the dog is not hungry?

I don't think need is what drives some instinctive behaviours. A lot of instinctive behaviours, for that matter. Animals do what they do because they're programmed to do it. Programmed by evolution, I guess. A fox in a chicken coop will often kill everything it can. The phenomonen is called overkilling. Even though the fox doesn't need all that food, it kills anyway. It doesn't even take what it doesn't need away to cache for later. It might go into a killing frenzy and kill everything in sight, but then it can only carry one or two anyway. It carries what it can and leaves the rest.

Same thing, I saw some young tigers learning how to hunt in an artificial environment on a documentary. They too killed more than they could eat. 

And providing a dog with all the food it needs doesn't mean it suddenly has no desire to expend valuable energy on chasing a ball or playing tug. I know a lot of dogs that will play tug or fetch even when they have just had a meal. I know one dog that would rather play fetch than eat a meal.

One of the big problems faced by zoos is boredom in their animals. Wild animals don't play much, so if you take away their ability to spend most of their time looking for food, you end up with a lot of animals with more time on their hands (paws, hooves, flippers) than they naturally have and no outlet for the things they feel compelled to do. My hare has all his food and water right there readily available, but that doesn't mean he isn't compelled to browse on anything and everything and automatically chews on whatever is handy when he settles down for rest. I have spent a lot of time in the past making his treats hard to get to. I'm sure he doesn't thank me for it, but it sure beats being woken up at 3am every morning by a restless, bored hare with no natural outlet for his energy.

Ron, I really liked your post and agree with everything but the idea that aggressive behaviour is actually stress. Aggressive behaviour is aggression in my books, but aggression is frequently a sign of stress. You can sure tell when I'm stressed out because I get snappy and become prone to aggressive displays (you know, throwing things, jumping up and down roaring, beating my chest, the usual primate things ). The important thing about body language is that it's honest. I'm acting agressively because I feel aggressive, but I feel aggressive because I'm stressed.

On the other hand, if someone really gets on my nerves I get aggressive towards them because I want them out of my face. But then, that too makes me feel stressed, because I'm a social animal and I hate social conflict. 

DPU

I still think that preditory behavior is an isolated behavior.  How do you explain it when the dog is not hungry

Actually, I think, your question nearly constitutes proof of the concept by putting light directly on it, in metaphor. Why does a dog still exhibit predatory behavior even when they are well-fed? Because the predatory behavior is instinctive. Some early researchers described it as a fixed action pattern. Something the animal does with which they are identified as the behavior is part and parcel of what they are and is often instinctive and the behavior can be seen in other circumstances. I also get LCK's point that much of what we train or expect a dog to do is aligned with their predatory behaviors. SAR dogs tracking by scent, as they would in a hunt. Racing dogs running as they would in a hunt. Agility dogs running and bounding over and through obstacles as they would in a hunt. Dogs guarding where they are as they would to protect their hunting grounds and dens. Herding dogs that guide an animal as they would naturally pressure a prey in a hunt into one direction or another. Dogs are also scavengers and will take what they can find when they find it. Hence, dogs are trainable with treats. They don't have to hunt but, as LCK might put it, the drive to hunt might create tension if they don't get out to hunt. So then, we channel that drive into other activities that still use the same functions they would use in a hunt or scavenging mission. That doesn't mean that dogs or other canids feel the need to exercise every day. But every day involves some activity that takes exertion.

So, even if the dog is not desparately hungry, they will still hunt because that's what they do. A bird might have just eaten but they will still fly and look for food or a nest because that is what they do. So, to some extent, I can also agree with LCK that dogs don't think like we do. They don't have the doggy equivalent of "I just ate and I don't need to chase that squirrel". What they have is, "I must get that, kill it, and bury it and come back to it later" but not in so many english words or with as much forethought.

IMO.

Oops, I didn't see your post until after I replied to DPU.

corvus

Ron, I really liked your post and agree with everything but the idea that aggressive behaviour is actually stress. Aggressive behaviour is aggression in my books, but aggression is frequently a sign of stress. You can sure tell when I'm stressed out because I get snappy and become prone to aggressive displays (you know, throwing things, jumping up and down roaring, beating my chest, the usual primate things ). The important thing about body language is that it's honest. I'm acting agressively because I feel aggressive, but I feel aggressive because I'm stressed

Does your stress reaction equivocate to what a dog does? That is, you didn't think that dog stress translates into aggression though I think it does, at times. And yet, you can act aggressively when stressed. So, then, is there a differentiation between canine stress and human stress? The dog that bullies and fights other dogs is doing it because - why? Is it over a resource or territory that contains resource? Now there can be aggression in humans and dogs that is not related directly to the "I must have that stress." In most cases in humans, it is due genetics (a number of violent criminals have an extra y chromosone) and injury (it has been found that a number of prolific serial killers did have abusive childhoods and overbearing parents, yes, but they all share in common a traumatic brain injury young in life). So, might a seemingly untreatable aggression in a dog also be from genetics or trauma? Otherwise, why should a dog fight another dog?

corvus

On the other hand, if someone really gets on my nerves I get aggressive towards them because I want them out of my face. But then, that too makes me feel stressed, because I'm a social animal and I hate social conflict

At the risk of anthropromorphizing, I think it is the same with dogs, ala the non-linear dog theory. Left to their own devices, dogs will either achieve a balance of sorts or drift apart, in either case, avoiding conflict.

Dog_ma

Power differentials exist between dogs. Those power differentials are not most usefully understood in terms of classic dominance theory OR stress/predatory drives.

I agree that they're not described successfully (if that's what you mean by "usefully understood";) in terms of the alpha theory. But they are described quite successfully in terms of the energy theory of behavior, of which stress and drives are important factors. You may be right that, at least in the way you understand drive/energy theory, that there are pieces missing. But when you see the pack as a self-organizing system, built around the need to hunt large prey, then there kind of has to be a built-in template for the optimal pack organization. Each pack is going to form itself around this optimal structure, or get as close as they can to it. And within that template there are different skills needed for the pack style of hunting. And each skill-set needed for hunting a large prey animal has a different type of energy, emotion, and focus, which would manifest outwardly -- at least in the way some people interpret this -- as power differentials. But I would have to say that while that's one way of looking at it, the way I see it is that what seem to be power differentials (or differences in rank and status) are part and parcel of the prey drive. This is why positions in the supposed hierarchy are so fluid and dynamic. According to the rigid interpretation of the alpha theory -- that dominance is genetic, an ineffacle quality that some pack members are just born with -- there would be no way to explain this fluidity; you'd always be dominant or fighting to "prove" that you are. The fact that the pack only exists to facilitate the hunting of large prey, does explain this seeming paradox.

Kevin Behan: "As an individual learns one role in the hunt, indirectly, he's half way to learning another. Each job is not so much a skill as a different emotional state of inhibitedness. The more uninhibited a [pack] member is, the less sensitive to resistance he'll be, and the more direct and straightforward his drive to bite. [So] he'll [seem to] be the leader. The more uninhibited an individual might be, the more ... restrained he'll act, and he'll [seem to] be a follower. In this way, not only does the prey instinct "train" each member to his place in the hunt, but also to what his range of reactions can be. In such a flexible system of learning, where each job is emotionally linked to another, there can be social migration through the "ranks," both upward and downward as the emotional environment of the group changes over time and the group adapts to retain overall balance and synchronization. Therefore, while learning is dynamic and responsive to outside elements, it is also predetermined."

In some alpha theory circles there are as many as five or six alpha wolves in a given pack: 1 for breeding, 1 for social niceties around the den, and 4 or 5 for various parts of the hunt. How does this happen? How do we explain that there's not just one alpha wolf?

In terms of the hunt, Kevin Behan gives us a clue above, which is that the one quality which determines who seems to be the leader at any given moment is this matter of uninhibitedness about biting the prey. But hunting is not a linear process. Things change. The prey animal tires, or finds new strength and energy when on a new, familiar type of terrain. One wolf may seem more uninhibited when chasing the animal at a certain angle, and more inhibited when coming at it from another. When the angles change, so does the "power structure." (Ron, as someone who's studied geometry I think you can support the idea that certain angles are weaker and others are stronger.) And angles of attack, levels of tiredness, changes in terrain, these are just a few drops in the bucket in terms of the panoply of ever changing factors that can make up a hunt.

Meanwhile, when the pack isn't hunting, the members still have the same basic qualities and/or levels of inhibited or uninhibitedness. That's the part that Kevin says is predetermined. Remember, there has to be a range of emotional states within the pack members in order for the template to make itself manifest and for the hunt to succeed. If everyone had an "alpha" temperament, or a "beta" or "omega," the hunt would surely fail. So the shifting dynamic of what you call power differentials is always going to relate back in some way to the prey drive. It's the nexus point of all pack life.

LCK 

ron2

So, even if the dog is not desparately hungry, they will still hunt because that's what they do. A bird might have just eaten but they will still fly and look for food or a nest because that is what they do. So, to some extent, I can also agree with LCK that dogs don't think like we do. They don't have the doggy equivalent of "I just ate and I don't need to chase that squirrel". What they have is, "I must get that, kill it, and bury it and come back to it later" but not in so many english words or with as much forethought.

But humans do the exact same thing!  I know when I go shopping, It doesn't really matter that I have, say, two 24 packs of Diet Coke at home, if I see a good deal on Diet Coke I am going to buy some.  Yes, Diet Coke is a non-perishable (unless it stays in your car when it is 0 degrees outside), but it also goes for purely other things that I don't need.  That is the reason Costco is so successful!

Humans go hunting and fishing even though it frequently winds up costing more for the deer or fish than if they had purchased the same thing.  I guess it is also just what we do! 

From what I've read in this thread and elsewhere, NILIF seems to work mostly through the "action/reaction" sequence.

Whether the dog thinks it's manipulating the owner (dog = action, by sitting & human = reaction, by giving something), or the owner manipulates the dog (owner requests something = action, the dog gives something by sitting = reaction, followed by owner giving dog something = freedom, toy, cookie, etc...), this is all about one being manipulating another.

If we are talking about using food or prey drive to manipulate, it's still manipulation. Still dishonest to a certain degree, IMO.

Sorry, social theory - for those who aren't denying there's a "gorilla" (dominance) in the livingroom who just sat on their head - lends itself to more of a cooperative, or team effort, rather than the strict "what's in it for me and I'm only out for myself = instant gratification" philosophy...where instability coates itself in a blanket of addiction.

Addicts sure do look happy when their fix is at hand, don't they?

The prey drive (usually teasing with a toy) and "positive only" (usually teasing with treats) philosophies are both very much in the same boat, both relying on drive (yep, drive-up excitement, sometimes to the point of obsession), and both offering the same arguements against the hierarchical beliefs.

Although neither is without their useful applications...(depending upon what you are trying to acheive with a given dog within a given moment, and overall), there's still that pesky round hole of reality which will not accomodate the square peg, no matter how hard one tries to beat it to fit.

Angelique

for those who aren't denying there's a "gorilla" (dominance) in the livingroom who just sat on their head

Can you prove the dominance theory or disprove the modern theories that dispel dominance as the primary motivator of dogs. And by dominance, I assume you mean a socio-political leader who achieves that by what, brute force or secret ballot or excellent cologne? It's one thing to make snide remarks about someone else's thinking and it's another to actually prove the theory with acceptable evidence or reasoning.

Lee Charles Kelley

(Ron, as someone who's studied geometry I think you can support the idea that certain angles are weaker and others are stronger.) And angles of attack, levels of tiredness, changes in terrain, these are just a few drops in the bucket in terms of the panoply of ever changing factors that can make up a hunt

To an extent, yes. A canid, from previous successes, may prefer a certain angle of attack and if they are too tired to keep running and precess, so to speak, into the "attack" angle, then they might back off, where as another canid might continue that angle, successfully or not but appearing more "dominant" because they didn't give up the chase. I see a repetition of angle in the way the dogs next door play. The mini-Schnauzer will rear up on the hound mix always from the right side. But if she is coming up under the jaw of the hound, she does so from the left side. A preference of angles for the move involved.

ron2

Does your stress reaction equivocate to what a dog does? That is, you didn't think that dog stress translates into aggression though I think it does, at times. And yet, you can act aggressively when stressed. So, then, is there a differentiation between canine stress and human stress? The dog that bullies and fights other dogs is doing it because - why? Is it over a resource or territory that contains resource? Now there can be aggression in humans and dogs that is not related directly to the "I must have that stress." In most cases in humans, it is due genetics (a number of violent criminals have an extra y chromosone) and injury (it has been found that a number of prolific serial killers did have abusive childhoods and overbearing parents, yes, but they all share in common a traumatic brain injury young in life). So, might a seemingly untreatable aggression in a dog also be from genetics or trauma? Otherwise, why should a dog fight another dog?

Well, barring sad upbringings and genetic anomalies, there are still a lot of human bullies out there. I think they bully for the same reason dogs do: because they want things and it's a behaviour that works for them. I think in both dogs and humans, what they want might just be a sense of control, which gives them a feeling of safety and security. Penny has been a bully when she was younger, and I honestly think she was that way because she was anxious and insecure and her way of making herself feel less anxious and more secure was to try to control the actions of the other dogs around her that were making her feel insecure and anxious in the first place. She would have kept on like that indefinitely if other dogs hadn't eventually got tired of her and turned on her so that her controlling behaviour was actually resulting in more anxiety and insecurity and direct social conflict to boot. Her strategy failed so she abandoned it, and she's a happier dog for it.

With humans, I think a lot of bullies simply grow out of being bullies. Often I think it's seen in kids because their social rules are more straight forward (and brutal) than those of adults. When they grow up they realise bullying doesn't always work and often it makes people hate them, which sometimes puts them in direct conflict, which they don't always win, and all of a sudden it's a failing strategy. Unfortunately, some bullies never have their strategy fail on them and they remain thugs all their lives, albeit lonely thugs surrounded by fawners that have no real affection for anything but power and protection.

And yeah, I think genetics and trauma does play a role in canine aggression as well. Chloe's brutal attacks on Penny that were threatening her life were not, IMO, normal dog behaviour. We missed out on the first 9 months or so of her life. Goodness knows what happened in that time. One thing for sure, though, she didn't have any bite inhibition, and she didn't know that aggression didn't mean she needed to fight for her own life. 

corvus

because they want things and it's a behaviour that works for them

That's a good point and certainly fits in with the "dogs do what works" thing.

corvus

I think in both dogs and humans, what they want might just be a sense of control, which gives them a feeling of safety and security.

i.e., resource guarding, even if it involves an overt behavior such as aggressing against or challenging another dog. Once the other dog appears to not be a threat, the anxious behavior subsides.

But I do agree that some dogs can act in what may seem as an aggressive manner because it has worked.

As for human bullies, they get corrected in a couple of ways. Either, as you suggest, they reach a point in their lives where the bullying doesn't accomplish anything, or someone stands up to them and takes them down a notch.

Angelique

Sorry, social theory - for those who aren't denying there's a "gorilla" (dominance) in the livingroom who just sat on their head - lends itself to more of a cooperative, or team effort, rather than the strict "what's in it for me and I'm only out for myself = instant gratification" philosophy...where instability coates itself in a blanket of addiction.

I agree that there is (or can be) an element of addiction in things like clicker training and the +R model in general. That's because they can tend to artificially stimulate the pleasure circuits in the brain. Some of that artificial stimulation is fine, but it can become too much in some cases. Using the prey drive doesn't rely on any sort of artificial stimulation at all. Just the opposite. It uses the natural energy inherent in the dog's instinctive need to cooperate while hunting and gives that need and energy an outlet through obedience. And if you're still yearning for the role of pack leader, the only way to truly become that creature for your dog is to become the center point that all predatory games revolve around. To say that the dominance model fosters cooperation is completely backwards. Dominance actually short-circuits a dog's ability to learn and obey.

Kevin Behan: "Not only does dominating a dog make him resistant to cooperation, [it] has nothing to do with the smooth operation of wolf society. While it may appear that the leader is the most dominant in a pack of wolves, and that inferiors have a profound respect for this "alpha" wolf because he is so dominant, that is a surface misreading of their lives. Supposedly this dominant individual teaches the other members of the pack what their lesser stations are, bringing order and stability to the group. However, the reason this individual [seems] superior is because ... he is endowed with the most uninhibited temperament, and perceives order when others sense disorder. This produces an emotional balance--a self-confidence level--that makes him [more] active and direct where others are reactive and indirect. This confidence is broadcast through his body language, and probably through an internal chemistry...

"Given the 'pack leader's' internal balance, he will experience the least amount of stress when passing on to less familiar ground, as [any potential] negatives are smaller in his sense of order. Furthermore [he] will feel [magnetically drawn to clearest and most direct] path that leads outward to the hunt [because] he acts in the most straightforward manner. The 'inferiors' will depend on the 'pack leader's' enthusiasm to draw then across a threshold that [would ordinarily] have ... an inhibiting effect on them. An individual doesn't become superior by being dominant; the leader, to feel complete, needs the group behind him, just as they need him at the fore. Only by leading the hunt does one become a leader."

Angelique

Addicts sure do look happy when their fix is at hand, don't they? The prey drive (usually teasing with a toy) and "positive only" (usually teasing with treats) philosophies are both very much in the same boat, both relying on drive (yep, drive-up excitement, sometimes to the point of obsession), and both offering the same arguements against the hierarchical beliefs.

This is patently untrue. Many in the +R world (Dunbar, McConnell) are still true believers in the hierarchy model. And many who consider themselves experts in the prey drive also consider themselves to be alpha wolves in their dog's eyes. And your perceptions of what is and isn't drive in training is poorly focused at best. The prey drive is there; its energy permeates almost everything a dog does or feels or experiences. Natural Dog Training is a means for giving that energy the most satisfying outlet possible through learning. And remember, almost all of the basic obedience behaviors we teach our dogs are based in some way on the predatory motor patterns of wolves. So where you see teasing and addiction as consonant with building drive and releasing it through obedience, you're looking at the process totally upside down and backwards. 

Angelique

there's still that pesky round hole of reality which will not accomodate the square peg, no matter how hard one tries to beat it to fit.

The "pesky round hole of reality," by which I take to mean the hierarchical structure of canine society, the role of the pack leader, etc., is not reality at all. It's been proven false twelve ways to Sunday. However, if you look at Kevin Behan's analysis (above) about how and why the pack "follows" one wolf you'll still be able to hold on to some of your cherished beliefs about your role as the pack leader, as long as you follow his model completely: exude confidence, don't ever show "dominance" toward a dog, and teach him how to use his predatory energy in play. If you want to be your dog's "pack leader," that's the only way to do it.

Anyway, that's the way I see it,

LCK 

Um, no. Ian Dunbar and all of his cohorts within the APDT offer the same aguements (and misinformation) regarding "dominance theory" as you do. The same "Kitten With a Whip" emotional conjuring, while at the same time supporting this same theory using their own terminologies...as are you.

Here's a hint, dominance is not about dog abuse or ego.

I'm not new to reading what you have to say, and it does have merit. However, in the three plus years I've been reading your posts in the dog forums, the Cesar discussions, and a lot of other platforms...why is it you are still the only one promoting prey drive as the be all and end all of interacting with a dog in these venues?

Ask any detection dog trainer which drive they use to train detection dogs, and why they specifically pick dogs for this work who are obsessed, with prey drive.

If you are going to go to war over a word (dominance), it might be wise to do some study into the correct application of that word. Now, how many definitions are there for the terms "dominant and dominance"?

The google search is your best friend.

And you still didn't answer my question. Which actually doesn't bother. Sometimes, a question doesn't have an answer.