Lupomorphizing

I have noticed that some of the captive wolf studies, where the wolves were closely confined and stressed to the point of excess aggression with each other may have lead to some of the old "alpha roll" and "scruff shaking" techniques...or was pointing this out the purpose of this thread to begin with? []

Most of the these "old" interpretations and use of the original "alpha roll" were way out of line. It involved a lot of aggression towards the dog, getting in the dog's face (usually in anger and frusration), growling, and even baring your teeth! Weird.

I've heard of guide dog pups being put on their backs a lot to test and condition them. This was referred to as an "alpha roll", but the above mentioned "over the top" aggressive tactic is not ever used.

The "scruff shake" is another one. Digging your fingers into a dog's neck or holding a dog by the scruff should not involve shaking in any way. A dog or a wolf would only grab and shake if they were attacking or attempting to shake a prey animal to death.

Lots of misconceptions, misinterpretations, and misreptresentations being flung around regarding old interpretations of outdated captive wolf studies. IMOAE

I agree with everything that's been said by folks who find it reasonable to draw on knowledge of wolf behavior, pariah dogs, etc. to help us understand dogs. As, I believe studying apes gives us some perspective on our own behavior. Of course we need to be careful on what conclusion we make based on these observations, and how we apply that knowledge. There is no harm in studying species we share our lives with. (I actually think I. Dunbar's quote has been taken too far by a lot of writers; I cringe when I see it in every other article on dogs...)

I tend to harp on this a lot, but I think it's worthwhile to always remind yourself that wolves only get to breed if they're at the top of the social pecking order. That is such a massive selection pressure, and one that has been swung around 180 degrees in domestic dogs.

I don't think the selection pressure is that strong. In the wild, most wolves disperse from their packs to pair with other dispersed wolves and start their own packs. In one study I read, a scientist mentioned that he knows of no permanent dispersers that failed to breed if they lived long enough. The social status is relative depending on who is around. (As it is true with humans.) If you are omega, and are separated from the group, you might become alpha in a different group. It was said that the nature is not saying that you are too week to bread, you just need to find the right mate whose predisposition is close to you.

I also read that wolves in *nature* are very docile animals, and rarely get into fights. Their social interaction are much more peaceful than interactions between captive wolves. When placed in a captive environment with selected wolves aggression escalated, and scientists often sited a wolf pinning another to the ground. So, although there is no evidence of wolves physically alpha rolling each other to correct a behavior, there is evidence that in captivity wolves pin one another. I think that this can be equated to our relationship with dogs: we are keeping them captive, when wolves and strays avoid those who they don't want to confront. I said it before, having freedom to leave leads to a more peaceful and stable pack.

A lot of what we learn from wolves might be applied to dog-to-dog behavior. I am not sure about dog-to-human behavior. Some believe that dogs don't consider us to be a part of the pack anyway, because we are different species.

PS. I am not promoting alpha rolls.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I don't understand it either. The "alpha roll" was discredited over what, 30 years ago now? 

cosnider also that The Culture Clash was published in 1996, completely de-bunking the whole "dominance" approach to dog training. Yet we have a certain prominent TV person preaching this discredited, outdated idea today-- and hordes of people believing it and applying it to their poor dogs.

 
Discredited by who? people that are "positive only"? what about the ones that are not?
 
What if i write a book about some +R techniques that i dont like? are they discredited from now on according to my "research"?
 
I know a book (you might know the author) that was written last year, does that make the Culture Clash obsolete because it was written 10 years ago?
 
One thing is a book with an opinion and a different thing is to think it was debunking something that you didnt like
 

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I don't understand it either. The "alpha roll" was discredited over what, 30 years ago now? 

cosnider also that The Culture Clash was published in 1996, completely de-bunking the whole "dominance" approach to dog training. Yet we have a certain prominent TV person preaching this discredited, outdated idea today-- and hordes of people believing it and applying it to their poor dogs.

Discredited by who? people that are "positive only"? what about the ones that are not?

What if i write a book about some +R techniques that i dont like? are they discredited from now on according to my "research"?

I know a book (you might know the author) that was written last year, does that make the Culture Clash obsolete because it was written 10 years ago?

One thing is a book with an opinion and a different thing is to think it was debunking something that you didnt like

 
Actually, rather by dozens and dozens of behaviourists (ABA's), ethologists studying wolf behaviour (REAL wild wolf behaviour, not captive wolf packs who display totally un-natural behaviours...Mech is one example among many), dog breeders worldwide....need I say more?
 
You're right, there is a difference between opinion and fact, there is also a difference between invalid information (alpha rolls) and valid information. []

... Not to mention the alpha roll's also been discredited by its original champions & pop disseminators, the Monks of New Skete. It would be like Karen Pryor coming out and saying clicker training doesn't work.

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

Actually, rather by dozens and dozens of behaviourists (ABA's), ethologists studying wolf behaviour (REAL wild wolf behaviour, not captive wolf packs who display totally un-natural behaviours...Mech is one example among many), dog breeders worldwide....need I say more?

You're right, there is a difference between opinion and fact, there is also a difference between invalid information (alpha rolls) and valid information. []

 
Like who? Ian Dunbar? Patricia McConnell? friends and fans? Do they like those techniques? no, do they work? yes
 
Arent dogs dominant to eachother? is funny how you just focus your answers on the subjects that can back up your point of view (alpha roll ) and you "forget" about the ones that do not (dominance)
 
I invite you to go here and see that the balance is pretty equal IMO
 
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=245916]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=245916[/link]
 
 

What do I think of the dominance monolith/myth? Just that, quite a myth, at least in the way you are referring to. It's another 1960's based attitude indicating that dogs are "born" with this sense of dominance, that one dogs 'dominates' over all other dogs (alpha), and others at levels in between. Which in fact has also been discredited by those very same people - ABA's, ethologists, and dog breeders. [] 
 
Dominance is a very fluid construct. It does not occur in a vacuum, one dog is not "dominant" over all other dogs, rather dominance is situation-specific. Dominance is ONLY situation specific, and can ONLY happen in an interaction with two or more dogs. One dog can (if you like the word) be dominant in one situation, say, have the best sleeping spot, and then in the next moment will reverse the roles and the other dog will be "dominant" and take a toy from another dog. And they will reverse roles throughout their lives in a dance of relationships. Even the wolf studies of dominance have been debunked and modified to show the fluidity of this construct. The entire concept of dominance is over-used, over-rated, and in most cases that it is used in, invalid as well.
 
I'm not sure what you mean about focussing my answers on things that back up my POV, I focus my answers on scientific research, data, observations, factual information. [] What do you base yours on?
 
Saying I "forget" anything is totally false. I have not forgotten anything, my views (from research) just invalidate and conflict with your views on what dominance happens to encompass.
 
Kim MacMillan

I invite you to go here and see that the balance is pretty equal IMO

[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=245916]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=245916[/link]

 
By the way, when you talk about "balance" in views, if you wanted factual, hard data on alpha rolls and their use, the last place you think you'd be taking it from is a message board poll, no? [] Talk about invalid, anecdotal info at its best.

The balance of what people DO to their dogs is one thing, the true nature, usefullness, and whether it's even a behavoiur that is used by the animals you are inflicting it upon, is something entirely different.
 
Kim MacMillan

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

What do I think of the dominance monolith/myth? Just that, quite a myth, at least in the way you are referring to. It's another 1960's based attitude indicating that dogs are "born" with this sense of dominance, that one dogs 'dominates' over all other dogs (alpha), and others at levels in between. Which in fact has also been discredited by those very same people - ABA's, ethologists, and dog breeders. [] 
 

 
Thanks you just let me know that you clearly misunderstand what dominance is, specially with "indicating that dogs are born" with this sense of dominance", which actually is the opposite way, most dogs would love to be submissive
 
Yeap the wheel was invented thousands of years ago so i guess is also obsolete []
 
Also discredit by people that just dont like what they see, thats all, i can find a lot of people that dont like some +R techniques, should that means they are wrong? i also have my share of dog breeders, trainers, etc that support the dominance theory, which ones should we be listening to?

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan
Dominance is a very fluid construct. It does not occur in a vacuum, one dog is not "dominant" over all other dogs, rather dominance is situation-specific. Dominance is ONLY situation specific, and can ONLY happen in an interaction with two or more dogs. One dog can (if you like the word) be dominant in one situation, say, have the best sleeping spot, and then in the next moment will reverse the roles and the other dog will be "dominant" and take a toy from another dog. And they will reverse roles throughout their lives in a dance of relationships. Even the wolf studies of dominance have been debunked and modified to show the fluidity of this construct. The entire concept of dominance is over-used, over-rated, and in most cases that it is used in, invalid as well.

 
Yeah you are right, alphas wolves are just alpha some days and they are betas the rest of the week, i agree that all can be equal but not changing status like underwear, try to prove your point here:
 
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=243973]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=243973[/link]
 

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan


I'm not sure what you mean about focussing my answers on things that back up my POV, I focus my answers on scientific research, data, observations, factual information. [] What do you base yours on?

 
The same, like i said, i have my share of people that say the opposite

Instead of reply back just take a couple hours to study this thread and see if you can learn more about dominance from different people with different experiences, here you can learn from both sides, not just one that sounds just as you like it to sound
 
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=228507]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=228507[/link]
 
Do you want more scientific data? from professional behaviorists? yeah i have from those too []

I really don't think Anne meant to turn this into a debate about alpha-rolling.  There have been enough of those.  Fair enough that it came up, since comparison with wolves is one reason why alpha rolling is advocated by certain people in the dog world. 
 
The original issue is whether comparison with wolves helps or hinders our relationship with our dogs.  I personally think it's harmful in a general sense, but useful in specific aspects of behaviour research.  Others feel differently, and I accept that, but I do not see wolf/dog comparisons as being SOLELY a dominance issue, and there are perhaps many other facets that should be discussed.
 
I think this was a brilliant idea for a thread, and am sorry to see it has decended into a dominance theory/C.M/+R debate.  Are there not enough of those around here?
 
Kate

Thanks for your condescending note, but I don't need to study something for hours of which is going to try to convince me of something that is invalid. But I'll read it for interest's sake anyhow. Why do I have to defend my position on a thread that is obviously pro-dominance-attitude? No thanks, but it's not a pissing contest, at least not for me.[]
 
You obviously 100% completely misunderstand my position on the dominance myth. I did not say dominance doesn't exist in a certain form of dogs. Of course it does, it exists in all social species. I disagree with you on HOW it exists between those dogs, and I reisist the urge to continually look at dogs as wolves in multi-colored fursuits. So with that I will bow out of the conversation and continue to study the real research, and let the discussion get back to what it is supposed to be.
 
P.S. "Alpha" wolf itself is a misnomer, since real wolf packs almost always consist of two parents and their offspring. Both parents share different roles in the "pack", exhibiting sex-dependent "alpha" roles (if you will), and at other times the younger wolves in the family are often leading the pack on specific tasks. So yes, dominance IS fluid.
 
Kim MacMillan

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

By the way, when you talk about "balance" in views, if you wanted factual, hard data on alpha rolls and their use, the last place you think you'd be taking it from is a message board poll, no? [] Talk about invalid, anecdotal info at its best.

The balance of what people DO to their dogs is one thing, the true nature, usefullness, and whether it's even a behavoiur that is used by the animals you are inflicting it upon, is something entirely different.

Kim MacMillan

Well as i see it you just called all of  them ignorant people that dont know what they are talking about, regardless what side are they in, what makes you think they dont read books and data too, do you think they just came and started talking without knowing what are they doing, did you even read it? 

We can have a war of  "show me your data and i will show you mine" i can show you trainers that think clicker training sucks, i can show you videos showing that alpha rolling works and you can show me data that says the opposite

Feel free and take out the part where you say:

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan
I'm not sure what you mean about focussing my answers on things that back up my POV, I focus my answers on scientific research, data, observations, factual information

So you contradict yourself, is invalid anectdotal info at its best, but you also state that you focus your answers also in observations, so what makes you think that your observations are better that the rest of the people here in the forum

It seems to me that you pick really really well what you want to read, avoiding everything that could put a doubt in the perfect +R world you have in your mind. Whatever you dont like is wrong and you pick the data and trainers that can make you feel secure about that

At least the other members of this forum have the courage to go here:

[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tt.asp?forumid=61]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tt.asp?forumid=61[/link]

and still try to understand the other way to see the things, just like the way i am here, feel free to post your ideas here where not everybody share your opinions and have a productive discussion, i'm sure they have a looooooooooooot of data to show you []

ORIGINAL: houndlove

Wow, how do any of those people still have faces? []

Apparently, their wolf-dogs suffer from learned helplessness.

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I don't understand it either. The "alpha roll" was discredited over what, 30 years ago now? 

cosnider also that The Culture Clash was published in 1996, completely de-bunking the whole "dominance" approach to dog training. Yet we have a certain prominent TV person preaching this discredited, outdated idea today-- and hordes of people believing it and applying it to their poor dogs.

Discredited by who? people that are "positive only"? what about the ones that are not?

What if i write a book about some +R techniques that i dont like? are they discredited from now on according to my "research"?

I know a book (you might know the author) that was written last year, does that make the Culture Clash obsolete because it was written 10 years ago?

One thing is a book with an opinion and a different thing is to think it was debunking something that you didnt like

Discredited by others, including some wolf biologists, as well, although mudpuppy was kind to give you yet another occasion where you could bash Jean Donaldson.  Obviously, there are some similarities between wolf and dog behavior, but too often, humans have used them as an excuse to be rough with dogs physically, when they could just as easily have been kind and simply trained the dog.

Well as i see it you just called all of  them ignorant people that dont know what they are talking about, regardless what side are they in, what makes you think they dont read books and data too, do you think they just came and started talking without knowing what are they doing, did you even read it? 

 
Please show me where I said that. I didn't say that anybody was ignorant, or that they were necessarily wrong. For all I know there are people on there who have said things that I fully agree with, and others I fully disagree with. I did say that I wasn't going to get into a pissing contest with you about "who is right and who is wrong".
 

  We can have a war of  "show me your data and i will show you mine" i can show you trainers that think clicker training sucks, i can show you videos showing that alpha rolling works and you can show me data that says the opposite

 
Of course we can. That's the joy of research.
 

  So you contradict yourself, is invalid anectdotal info at its best, but you also state that you focus your answers also in observations, so what makes you think that your observations are better that the rest of the people here in the forum

 
Wherever did you get the idea that I was talking about my observations? Have you never heard of the observational METHOD of research? It's taught in any intro-level research class. I said "observations", not "my observations". Please refrain from making false assumptions. It doesn't do anybody any good.
 

  It seems to me that you pick really really well what you want to read,

Actually, to the contrary. I read just about everything and everybody, regardless if I agree with it or not. After all, if I didn't read about those I disagree with, how would I ever disagree with them? []  Give me something I totally disagree with and I'll read it anyhow, that is the basis of learning and how we create our ideas.
 

  avoiding everything that could put a doubt in the perfect +R world you have in your mind. Whatever you dont like is wrong and you pick the data and trainers that can make you feel secure about that

Personal attacks are completely unnecessary. I wonder why it is you need to make other people feel less than you are, when they simply disagree. Perhaps it's not my "security" that is at stake?
 
Not to mention, your allegations are totally false. If you have ever read my posts, you should have noticed that I have never, not once, assumed a "perfect R+" world. Again, to the contrary. I have made it quite clear on almost all of my posts, that I use far more than R+ in my relationships with dogs. I think you need to really actually read what others write before making such assumptions.
 

  At least the other members of this forum have the courage to go here:

[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tt.asp?forumid=61]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tt.asp?forumid=61[/link]

What ever are you talking about? The "courage" to go there? As if this thread has some superior presence in the world of dog knowledge? Once again, you couldn't be far more wrong. I frequent that board very, very often, and read virtually every post on that board. However, I do not post on it, you're right. Why would I? I can learn anything that needs to be learned by reading. You're forgetting the board is for C.M. enthusiasts. I am not an enthusiast of C.M., therefore I don't post. Does that suddenly make me less worthy or less knowledgable because I refrain from posting on a particular board?
 
I really think you need to learn to have a little more respect for others, even when they don't share your beleifs on what is right and what is wrong. There is a little something called tact that is required in order to hold mature, coherent dissussions on message boards. I'm very sorry you have such a poor view of somebody you don't know, and that you have formed such incorrect assumptions of somebody simply because they disagree with you. I really am sorry for that.
 
Kim MacMillan