Lupomorphizing

Do you want more scientific data? from professional behaviorists? yeah i have from those too

 

We can have a war of  "show me your data and i will show you mine"

 
To Kim and espencer.......
 
YES! Yes please!  When I opened the Alpha roll thread (oh if only I had known) that was one of the things I was after.  Scientific data, research, observational documented studies carried out by behaviourists and various "ologists" both supporting and discrediting the theories behind the alpha roll, dominance "myths"  and lupomorph-wossnaming (a word which I'd never heard of before but if I'd known it then I would have used it).  I've watched this thread with avid interest hoping something would come up. 
 
I want to examine the "evidence" on both sides so I can feel I have made an informed decision.  And, I admit I'm a dog nerd and info junkie.  I am sure other members would like the opportunity to do the same.  So don't you guys dare threaten and not deliver!
 
espence, I'm going to tease you now but I'm after a variety of sources please! [][][][][][]

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

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.

 

I am so sorry, i thought that you as everyone else here has observations of your own, because you have your own right? What do you see on your dogs? how do they behave? i assume nobody there is alpha 24/7 and they change status very often as you stated before, can i see some of your dogs pics? because you have dogs right?

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?

Wow a thread with superior presence? i would love if you show me a quote where i said that. So do you go there often? very funny, i am there pretty often too and i have never seen your nickname on the top of the forum indicating you are there, i have seen everyone else, but not you, but hey, i have to confess i am not there at 3 am []

Anne (spiritdogs) is the least enthusiast CM person i know and she is there, everybody is welcome, the difference is that they have the courage to post on a thread where they know there is a lot of people that dont share the same beliefs and they are not afraid of posting their point of view (which is very well respected by the way). Your opinion would be also if you were not coming saying that something i believe in is "wrong", "oudated" and "discredited" and thats being disrespectful

Of course a close minded person does not bother to post over there

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 know several people that are not CM enthusiasts that think i am able to do exactly the opposite

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.

Dont worry, I'm sure you are going to be able to survive []

Yes, I certainly do have dogs. Currently our home houses 13 dogs (and 8 additional pups, which will be heading to their new homes soon) - 12 of those Miniature Schnauzers, 1 is a Shih Tzu mix. They all live in the home, so I have the privelege of living with, interacting with, and observing many dogs, and I have observed many, many dogs over the last 15 years, of various breeds. I have not lived a day in my life in which I have "not" had a dog, I was born into a home of dogs (Labrador Retrievers at that time) and have had dogs in my life every day since my birth date. And of course I have pictures, how many would suit your pleasure?

Of course I have my own observations, and I do draw from them. However I don't use them in everday evidence of discussing canid behaviour, since it is anecdotal evidence, but it does supplement my learnings. If there was something in particular I wished to study in my dogs, the opportunity is there to do it in a scientific manner.
 
And of course I frequent the C.M. board daily. Just because you may not see my name there doesn't mean I'm not there. I am in and out through various times of the day, what with full-time university, I don't tend to have a regular schedule for extra curriculars, basically when I can fit time in. I have spent many an hour there already. And personally I don't worry about who does/does not like C.M and who posts there regardless. That does not mean I have to, and that does not make me "not courageous" because I choose not to post. I'm glad to see you keep tabs on all however many thousand members there are and what members go to which boards though. [] But believe me, courage has nothing to do with it. [] I have plenty of courage to speak my mind when needed. I am not afraid in the least, I assure you.
 
Chuffy, in response your question: These are just what I happen to have on my home computer, when I get to my university computer I'll share what other sources I have. Hopefully these will provide some use to you?
 
From the Journal of Applied Welfare Science
[linkhttp://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327604jaws0704_7?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jaws]http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327604jaws0704_7?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jaws[/link]
The abstract:

A popular perspective on the social behavior of dogs in multiple-dog households sees the dogs' behavior as reflecting the sociobiological laws of the rigidly structured dominance hierarchy that has been described for wolf packs. This view suggests that aggression problems among dogs are natural expressions of conflict that arise whenever dominance status is in contention. One recommended solution has been for the owner to endorse and enforce a particular dominance hierarchy because, on the wolf pack model, aggression is minimized when the structure of the hierarchy is clear, strong, and stable. This article questions the validity of this perspective on 2 principal grounds. First, because it does not seem to occur in the wild, this article suggests the strong dominance hierarchy that has been described for wolves may be a by-product of captivity. If true, it implies that social behavior—even in wolves—may be a product more of environmental circumstances and contingencies than an instinctive directive. Second, because feral dogs do not exhibit the classic wolf-pack structure, the validity of the canid, social dominance hierarchy again comes into question. This article suggests that behavioral learning theory offers another perspective regarding the behavior of dogs and wolves in the wild or in captivity and offers an effective intervention for aggression problems.

 
Citation (I can't find an online article that you don't have to pay for, I'm a university student so have access to it for free....if you can't access it let me know)
Mech, L. D. 1999. Alpha status, dominance, leadership, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77(:1196-1203.
Abstract:

Abstract: The prevailing view of a wolf (Canis lupus) pack is that of a group of individuals ever vying for dominance

but held in check by the "alpha" pair, the alpha male and alpha female. Most research on the social dynamics of wolf

packs, however, has been conducted on non-natural assortments of captive wolves. Here I describe the wolf-pack social

order as it occurs in nature, discuss the alpha concept and social dominance and submission, and present data on the

precise relationships among members in free-living packs, based on a literature review and 13 summers of observations

of wolves on Ellesmere Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. I conclude that the typical wolf pack is a family, with

the adult parents guiding the activities of the group in a division-of-labor system in which the female predominates

primarily in such activities as pup care and defense and the male primarily during foraging and food-provisioning and

the travels associated with them.

 
 
 
The one that I really like, since it applies to the domestic dog, and not wolves:
The Social Organization of the Domestic Dog;
A Longitudinal Study of Domestic Canine Behavior and the Ontogeny of Canine Social Systems
[linkhttp://www.nonlineardogs.com/SocOrgDomDog.html]http://www.nonlineardogs.com/SocOrgDomDog.html[/link]Abstract:

  The theory that a hierarchy based on dominance relationships is the organizing principle in social groups of the sort canis lupus is a human projection that needs replacing.  Furthermore, the model has unjustifiably been transferred from its original place in the discussion of the behavior of wolves to the discussion of the behavior of domestic dogs (canis familiaris).  This paper presents a new, more adequate model of how familiaris organizes itself when in groups.  This paper is based on a longitudinal study of a permanent group of five randomly acquired dogs living in their natural habitat, as they interact with each other within the group, with newcomers of various species who joined the group, and with fleetingly met individuals of various species in their outside environment.  This study shows that the existence of the phenomenon "dominance" is questionable, but that in any case "dominance" does not operate as a principle in the social organization of domestic dogs.  Dominance hierarchies do not exist and are in fact impossible to construct without entering the realm of human projection and fantasy.  The hypotheses were tested by repeatedly starting systems at chaos and observing whether the model predicted the evolution of each new system.  The study shows that domestic canine social groups must be viewed as complex autopoietic systems, whose primary systemic behavior is to gravitate as quickly as possible to a stable division of the fitness landscape so that each animal present is sitting on a fitness hill unchallenged by other group members.  Aggression is not used in the division of the fitness landscape.  It is not possible for an observer to measure the height of respective hills.  There is no hierarchy between or among the animals.  The organization of the system is based on binary relationships, which are converted by the agents as quickly as possible from competitive to complementary or cooperative binaries, through the creation of domains of consensus.  The production processes by which this is done are twofold. The first is an elegant and clear, but learned, system of communicative gestures which enables the animals to orient themselves adequately to each other and emit appropriate responses in order to maintain or restore the stability of their fitness hills and the larger social landscape.  The second is learning.  It is the learning history of each animal, which determines how adequately the animal can operate within the system and what the components of its individual fitness hill will be, and which, in the end, is more crucial to the animal#%92s survival than even presumed genetic factors or some human-constructed “dominance” position.  

 
I also urge you to read, if you haven't, "Dogs" by Ray and Lorna Coppinger. It's a fabulous, fabulous, book, very scientifically based, and I think anybody who has an interest in canid behaviour would do well to read it. It covers so many areas of evolution, wolf behaviour, village dog behaviour (what is thought to be the prototype between wolf and the domestic dog), and domestic dog behaviour, you can't go wrong with it.
 
I really am out of time, I have a Genetics exam tomorrow as well as an Animal Cognition presentation, so I must go prepare for those. When I get back to university tomorrow and if I have time (it's surprising the time it takes to put together citations when you keep them in various places...lol), I'll dig up the rest of my sources for you. []
 
Kim MacMillan

Good to keep in mind the original topic.

Wolves in the wild are far less likely to "alpha roll" another wolf unless there was a heirarchical (dominance) conflict due to the sudden death of one of the breeding pair, a shift and need to redifine the pack structure, and the conflict was between two relatively equal pack members who were hashing it out for breeding rights. Otherwise, the ongoing pack position would have been established through mostly ritual and posturing between members who all grow up together and established their ack position gradually over time and starting from cub-hood.

There may be both fluidity and a sudden group need in order to survive and breed, at work here.

The "alpha roll" as defined and used by man has several different points of justification, application, techniques, and purposes...most of which have little to do with captive wolf pack observations...although one can't deny picking though the various opinions on the data and research (and forming one's own opinion) which may be "out there", however slanted the data might be to prove one's point.

Wolf studies will only give you a piece of the entire puzzle. IMO

Yeap the wheel was invented thousands of years ago so i guess is also obsolete

No, but I'm sure that you would prefer an air filled tire on a cast aluminum rim, being spun about an axle on bearings than ride around on a stone or wooden wheel the way it was invented thousands of years ago.  Point?  Things evolve.  Ideas evolve and change over time.

We are often told not to anthropomorphize our dogs, since they are not human. Then, why should we lupomorphize our dogs? Many would say that our dogs are not wolves, any more than humans are still apes.
Do you think we do too much comparing of dogs to wolves?

 
I asked my brindlewonderkid this and he asked if it would help him to understand me if he chimpmorphized humans.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

No, but I'm sure that you would prefer an air filled tire on a cast aluminum rim, being spun about an axle on bearings than ride around on a stone or wooden wheel the way it was invented thousands of years ago.  Point?  Things evolve.  Ideas evolve and change over time.

Another example? plastic cups, they were invented after the glass cup and you are not going to tell me you rather to drink wine or beer in a plastic cup rather that in a glass right? it does not matter the example, the point is that just because something is newer not necessarily is better, or worse, is just different

Dogs are not wolves but they are similar, therefore they have similarities that can be seen in both species, thats why there is nothing wrong about talking about wolves a couple times when applies

We already went through the "show me your data and I'll show you mine" war during the alpha roll thread.

Chuffy and I shared all of ours and got zilch in return except "do your own research".

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Do you want more scientific data? from professional behaviorists? yeah i have from those too

We can have a war of  "show me your data and i will show you mine"

To Kim and espencer.......

YES! Yes please!  When I opened the Alpha roll thread (oh if only I had known) that was one of the things I was after.  Scientific data, research, observational documented studies carried out by behaviourists and various "ologists" both supporting and discrediting the theories behind the alpha roll, dominance "myths"  and lupomorph-wossnaming (a word which I'd never heard of before but if I'd known it then I would have used it).  I've watched this thread with avid interest hoping something would come up. 

I want to examine the "evidence" on both sides so I can feel I have made an informed decision.  And, I admit I'm a dog nerd and info junkie.  I am sure other members would like the opportunity to do the same.  So don't you guys dare threaten and not deliver!

espence, I'm going to tease you now but I'm after a variety of sources please! [][][][][][]

Thanks for your input Kim.... that has given me tons of food for thought.  And I'll pop over to amazon now and order a copy of "Dogs" as it sounds like just what I was looking for.... something I can really get my teeth into.[]
 

and still try to understand the other way to see the things, just like the way i am here,

the thing is espencer I've been there where you are-- years ago. And I can personally attest that the old-fashioned  "dominance" approach to training doesn't work anywhere near as well as applying modern behavioral modification theory to dogs.  We're not talking about a minor difference, we're talking an exponential increase in efficacy.  I don't understand how anyone can watch a dog being trained with a clicker and then go back to alpha roll and yank n spank. It's obvious to any on-looker that an operant dog trained with a clicker (or similar method) works so much better than training by force and dominance. We don't need theories about wolf pack structure, we don't need to establish dominance over the dog or make the dog respect us-- all we need to do is communicate and motivate. So easy and simple.

Certainly if you shut your dog down by heavy-handed "dominance" he probably won't misbehave very often, which might be your only goal with your dog. But you're going to have trouble teaching the shut-down dog new things. My operant clicker-trained dog not only does not misbehave, she can be taught to do endless numbers of new behaviors in minutes. Real dog training.

What I really don't like about lupo thingy-ing is that it often implies you need to speak or act like a wolf or a dog to communicate with your dog effectively.  YOU DON'T!!!!  In fact, the word "effectively" is relevant here - how can you "effectively" communicate by pretending to be a species you blatantly aren't?  The dog knows you are not a wolf.  He knows you are not a dog.  Sheesh, he's not stupid.  How can we really know how he perceives our actions when we (eg) alpha roll him?  How can we know how accurate we are being in our delivery in the dogs eyes? 
 
I'm not saying that there are not some attitudes/behaviours that we can't emulate successfully.  I'm saying that everyone should apreciate that this is a very limited part of how we can communicate with our dogs, is frequently not relevant, accurate or effective and can even be harmful. 
 
When lupo-doodahing our dogs, or ourselves (in trying to mimick wolf or dog behaviour to get a point across) IME it is more helpful when learning what body language to avoid rather than what body language to employ.

I have found in reading through a lot of different research, to pay close attention to both the source of the data and where to separate the facts from an opinion which is meant disprove a concept, belief, or theory, rather than prove it.
 
Every extinction theorist has loads of "research" which they claim supports their own personal theory, yet there are many theories which are in conflict.
 
I have never seen anything which has proven to me that dogs are not social animals, that they do not function under a heirarchy when they live closely together, that they do not display dominant and submissive behaviors to communicate who is who, and that they do not have squabbles in which one dog may end up on the ground. Can't really argue with what you see with your own eyes if you take them off of the computer screen and actually observe.
 
Sorry, but "book learnin", ersonal opinion, and the banty of word definitions does not hold as much water with me as a hundred fragments of independant bits of information which come from many unattached and honest scientific sources, without a personal agenda.
 
Flooding me with slanted data which is meant to disprove rather than prove, will not convince me either. It reminds me of a creation vs evolution debate. But hey, it is "written"...
 
Study any social mammal, read the research papers, watch a documentary, and then see how the words "alpha", "dominant", or "heirarchy" are used by the actual scientists who have no personal agenda to promote through fragmented data and opinion.
 
In looking at whether captive wolf studies, where wolves are stressed, put together with strange wolves they did not grow up with, and are influenced through contact with humans within a confined space...maybe another look is needed. In reality you are dealing with behaviors which actually are closer to what happens to a family dog who constanty is faced with interacting with strange dogs it did not grow up with, contact with humans, and kept within a confined space rather than a large territory...
 
Aggressive in-pack conflicts in the wild wolf may be practically non-existant for the same reason that dogs do not seem to exibit abnormal and stress related aggression and behavior problems when they live apart from man and only with each other either.
 
As for the "alpha roll" and the "dominance theory", the misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings will continue as if nothing has changed in 50 years...
 
 
 
 

I have never seen anything which has proven to me that dogs are not social animals, that they do not function under a heirarchy when they live closely together, that they do not display dominant and submissive behaviors to communicate who is who, and that they do not have squabbles in which one dog may end up on the ground. Can't really argue with what you see with your own eyes if you take them off of the computer screen and actually observe.

 
No one is denying any of these points.  I think the key point here is:  Is what you observe really applicable when training or communicating with dogs?  Two indisputable facts:  We are not wolves.  We are not dogs.  So when and where and how is this obervational learning relevant and applicable....?  I think that's what is being debated here.  Again its analogue rather than digital.... some of us use the theories and observations more than others to a greater or lesser degree.
 
And as I said before, I don't think these studies can give us very many pointers on how to behave with dogs.... but they can give us some very strong pointers on how not to behave.  That is where I personally think the research is most useful.

I have never seen anything which has proven to me that dogs are not social animals, that they do not function under a heirarchy when they live closely together, that they do not display dominant and submissive behaviors to communicate who is who, and that they do not have squabbles in which one dog may end up on the ground. Can't really argue with what you see with your own eyes if you take them off of the computer screen and actually observe.

 
of course they do. But as Chuff so kindly points out, we aren't dogs or wolves. Your dogs establish a pack amongst themselves, definitely. How do you fit in? you don't really. There's no way you can ever "talk dog" -- you don't have the body structure, same as your dog will never speak english, he doesn't have the throat/mouth structure to do so. Trying to pretend you're a dog is a waste of time. Better to spend your time establishing lines of communication between you and your dog. I find dog behavior fascinating and watch it all the time, but I don't try to emulate it or incorporate it into dog training. Most of what I want my dogs to do is completely foreign to dogs anyway. 

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

I have never seen anything which has proven to me that dogs are not social animals, that they do not function under a heirarchy when they live closely together, that they do not display dominant and submissive behaviors to communicate who is who, and that they do not have squabbles in which one dog may end up on the ground. Can't really argue with what you see with your own eyes if you take them off of the computer screen and actually observe.

No one is denying any of these points.  I think the key point here is:  Is what you observe really applicable when training or communicating with dogs?  Two indisputable facts:  We are not wolves.  We are not dogs.  So when and where and how is this obervational learning relevant and applicable....?  I think that's what is being debated here.  Again its analogue rather than digital.... some of us use the theories and observations more than others to a greater or lesser degree.

And as I said before, I don't think these studies can give us very many pointers on how to behave with dogs.... but they can give us some very strong pointers on how not to behave.  That is where I personally think the research is most useful.

 
 
We each have to come to our own independant decisions based on both research from many different unbiased sources, what we learn through our own experiences and observations, and what we have found useful in the real world based on success rates and the big picture. 
 
Each conversation and debate is useful. I learn things from people I may dissagree with due to their belief systems when they share personal experiences or cause me to think of a connected thought which may apply outside of the specific topic at hand.
 
We are not wolves or dogs. But a dog does not "read" our weird behaviors in wolf or human, they read us and try to make sense of us from the only perspective they have, as a dog with a dog's brain. They don't translate their instinctual language into "human". Although, they do seem to learn some "human" along the way and many will accept a hug with a happy groan, rather than react as if we are being overly dominant or rude in "dog". []