Interesting read on dominance/behavior

Next time you trial, have a look at the UD class and count the entries. There aren't a whole lot these days. The number of UD titled dogs is pretty small too, and i generally know who is who.

I am deeply distrustful on many of the trainers who are on that forum, and for good personal reasons. Certainly if they act like they do to humans who dissent with them, (and you have been spared this and have no idea of the behind the scenes machinations) i wouldn't let them near a dog.

There are some whose work I truely admire. But generally they don't say a whole lot. They are wiser than i am.

I am totally distrustful of anything that comes off that forum and that includes meeting you or your dog unfortunately. It is a little factor in human training called unfortunate experiences.

spiritdogs

Just another reason many of us have moved to positive training is that we realize that most owners we deal with would shun the issuance of a punishment severe enough to make their dog discontinue a thoroughly entrenched undesirable behavior for good.  Frankly, by the time most owners are sick of what their dog is doing, and call a trainer, the behavior is pretty entrenched;-)  They may have even been punishing the dog right along, but it hasn't worked because the dog was more motivated to get what he wanted than to avoid the pesky, but not so severe, punishment.  Most average people don't want to hurt their dogs, so it's much easier to teach them to reward what they like and ignore or fail to reward what they don't.

Hi Spiritdogs

 I couldn't agree with you more. I feel like filling the page with claps !!!!!!!!!!!!!.

If you look at the dog on my reply , he was a chocolate lab who died this year  at 15 years. He started off life like the Marley dog. He was hell on four legs and then we got the dominance treatment from a local "professional" trainer. It sorted of worked provided i curried him up once in a while . He was one tough dog, but his response to positive methods when he was four was enormous. He was CDX , HD stopped UD, and he was a TCH at 13 1/2. He didn't meander, he did an aged 1200 Meter track with 2 acutes four  other corners in 10 minutes flat. A dog like Cadbury has drive like there is no tomorrow, and a pain threshold thorught the roof. What a waste of time teaching him with pain based methods. What a shocking waste of talent and dog and human distress. Have you any idea what a sweet dog he really was when he understood what was wanted? I miss him badly.. I think that the dominance myth is a posinous insidious untruthful myth that underpins some poor ongoing training habits and prevents humans and dogs from having a happy furfilling relatinship.  

Next time you trial, have a look at the UD class and count the entries. There aren't a whole lot these days. The number of UD titled dogs is pretty small too, and i generally know who is who.

I am deeply distrustful on many of the trainers who are on that forum, and for good personal reasons. Certainly if they act like they do to humans who dissent with them, (and you have been spared this and have no idea of the behind the scenes machinations) i wouldn't let them near a dog.

There are some whose work I truely admire. But generally they don't say a whole lot. They are wiser than i am.

I am totally distrustful of anything that comes off that forum and that includes meeting you or your dog unfortunately. It is a little factor in human training called unfortunate experiences.

 

Sorry to hear that Denis, though you do sound slightly paranoid ;)

I must have met almost 100 people in real life via that forum, showies, pet owners, triallers, trainers/behaviourists alike and not once had an experience that would even remotely justify distrust like you have. Must just be lucky :)

huski

though you do sound slightly paranoid ;)

All  that you have to do is go through the dol forums, read some of the vitriol ,talk to me about what and who i am and you would find that if anything my reaction is a little on the generous side. :)) That for me is quite sad.

as OP, can I ask that we keep this on topic? I really enjoyed the article - and I'm liking reading everyone's responses to it.

I too felt it was one of the least biased things I've read online in a LONG time

 *winces for erica* Some forums aren't as strictly moderated as this one. I fear this is partially my fault for being a little too free with expressing my frustration in a public space. Sorry about that.

I really think bias does no one any good. It gives the people who disagree fuel for the fire and the people that agree either jump on the bandwagon with guns blazing or just feel frustrated that the methods discussed would have spoken for themselves much more convincingly without the biased spin. I've seen peer-reviewed papers sounding biased, and it makes me sad that they get published. That's not what science is about.

corvus

I really think bias does no one any good. It gives the people who disagree fuel for the fire and the people that agree either jump on the bandwagon with guns blazing or just feel frustrated that the methods discussed would have spoken for themselves much more convincingly without the biased spin. '

Hi 

 I am a bit sorry to all. I find it hard not to be a little firey commneting  on another  forum that suggested that it would be "cool" to use an e collar at 15 weeks on my now 3 year old poddle and no one challenged the proposer other than myself. The suggestion of course was based on an "Alpha" dog understanding of pack structure. The need to dominate and correct was fairly rampant. BTW my dog was then and is now somthing of an angel. :(((( You will see the link at the end...

In real life as in dog life i am much concerned with the adequacy of models. I guess that in a way that we have models that don't quite get there in terms of describing the full gamut of dog behaviour. As trainers, we fill in the gaps with more and more complicated statements and ideas, or throw up our hands in horror and decide that it all is too much for us and use the dreaded "common sense".

It is obvious to most that have worked with more modern models that the dominance model is deficient. I am not going to repeat the original statement form the AVA.As Temple Grandin reports in her latest book and this statement does, it just fails to describe dog behaviour as it really is. One of the tests of a model is to see whether it can predict the behaviour of the data that was collected to make it. It fails.I think though that the dominance model as Temple reports may describe the behaviour in some stressed forced packs. Behaviour that is traditionally associaited with this model may be described as the behaviour of  a group of stressed animals, and to me that pretty much describes how it works as a training model. I think this is  a key insight as to why it continues to exist. It does self perpetuate the conditons required to validate itself.

 I like sometimes to look at the different models and see where they may lead me. we often say emotions beat classical beats operant. we now have an exception on top of two models that can work together that are based on data collected from many trials.

My dog Luci is trialling in UD. (Yep, we call it Futility dog here too) I have so focused on having her in a happy focused state but there is one part of one excercise that i have never been happy with. At the end of our heeling in Signals, we leave our dogs in the standing position, walk a way a few paces turn around and signal for them to Drop, then sit then come to us.She has always been slow to drop in this excercise.

if we use the dominance model, i am absolutely certain that she would drop. I am not going to describe what would happen, but IMHO it is inexcusable and not requred. I also believe that in a very short time that she would not be a top trialling prospect.

 If i use R+ (which i have done ) i really couldn't shape the speed down. There was something else happening. Using clasical in the drop didin't work either, and besides that she has a fast rapid drop everywhere else. I was reading Temple Grandin's latest and a model caught my eye. It is based on the idea that a whole lot of behaviour is emotional (it is a pretty interetsing model) and i used the model to test what is happening. I noted that when she stood besides me, her tail went down which is an early sign of fear. While she has a steady stand for exam, it isn't that exciting for her , weighing 7.5Kg wringing wet. I decided to work on the emotion of the stand by counter conditioning her so that her tail was up and she was smiling in the stand... and when i did ask her to drop again after  she went like a rocket. So a new model provided me with better data to look after my dog.

I worry that this AVA statement has been issued many years after data existed that disputed the dominance model, and that some of the new information which links brain function to behavior such as the papers alluded to above from Temple Grandin it will be an absolute struggle to communcicate to the wider dog audience.

I have been having great fun working with the corrolaries of this theory with biomedical people. We have been playing with diagrams and concepts and to say that we are excited is an understatement.But i despair that it will get out to the wider dog world at all.

This brings me to a neccessary concept for trainers to understand too when we try to communicate concepts of positive training. It will often not work with trianers who may not live lives that are that greatly rewarding themselves, and have needs for control to feel different about themselves. It may also be that the need for peer acceptance is greater than the need to train their dog well.  If the group norm is to be a bit rough and gruff then that is what most others will do. Much of this is predicted within the literature on group behaviour. So i have linked the start of my post to the finish... and this time not strayed to much off topic!!

I heard somewhere that it typically takes 20 years for science to filter down to become common knowledge. We might have a while to wait, but it will get there with the dominance thing. 

corvus

I heard somewhere that it typically takes 20 years for science to filter down to become common knowledge. We might have a while to wait, but it will get there with the dominance thing. 

I heard that too, but listened to an intersting science article on Triple J here in Oz that suggested that it varied with speciality.Skinner had Operant condtioning out in the early 1960's so you are looking at  long long times in the dog world. Mech had suggested as early as 1977 that the dominance model was flawed i believe. (may be not publically). My own speciality is quite short (about 15 years ) but in the 1960's was often nearly overnight..

MODERATOR WARNING:

What happens on other forums STAY ON OTHER FORUMS.  We have a strict policy of NO BOARD WARS at this forum.  So discussion needs to remain on topic and applicable to what is said here on dog.community.

This is the warning, if this continues posts will be removed without warning.  Three edits earns you a suspension.  

Thanks for understanding and respecting our policies.

poodleOwned

I think that the dominance myth is a posinous insidious untruthful myth that underpins some poor ongoing training habits and prevents humans and dogs from having a happy furfilling relatinship.  

Bravo! As I like to say, regardless of what method a person uses, the dog is following you because they choose to. Because it is rewarding to them. If they are not following you it's because something else is more rewarding. The toughest and simplest thing is to be more rewarding. Granted, I am lucky, for the most part, in that my dog finds the treats I give to be a worthy reward for following. But it helps me to remember that all dogs seek to do rewarding things, whatever those things are and that my challenge is to be the most rewarding thing. I know that will hurt some people's feelings. Sorry about your luck. It's right there in front of everyone. The only reason any punishment or correction works is because of operant conditioning. Dogs avoid punishment and seek reward. That fact that a dog might stop a behavior to avoid a punishment is the very verification that they do what works. Avoid punishment and seek reward. So why not just cut to the chase and provide the reward in the direction you desire. And I know some people will get twisted when I use mathematical logic like that. My bad.

I think you make more sense than you think you do, Ron.

That article includes "dominance" on situations where dominance has nothing to do with (jumping, lousy recall, giving treats,etc.) Based on that you can tell that this article was intended for all those people that have never picked up a book about dogs.

Not only the situations that have nothing to do with dominance have been picked to make sound like if dominance does not exist, also where an answer might have something to do with dominance, the answer has been twisted to once again make dominance sound bad.

They even twist techniques to make them look absurd.

The whole article was thought with the idea that 100% of the dogs look for a higher rank and that is not true. Maybe is just the choose of terms once again, "dominance" for sure sounds bad, change it to "benevolent leader" or "Mom & Dad" and the whole perception changes too. Truly dominat dogs towards humans are rare, just like truly human aggressive dogs are rare too but there is no doubt that they both exist.

Maybe it is like ghosts, you dont believe in them until you actually see a real one.

espencer

That article includes "dominance" on situations where dominance has nothing to do with (jumping, lousy recall, giving treats,etc.) Based on that you can tell that this article was intended for all those people that have never picked up a book about dogs.

Not only the situations that have nothing to do with dominance have been picked to make sound like if dominance does not exist, also where an answer might have something to do with dominance, the answer has been twisted to once again make dominance sound bad.

They even twist techniques to make them look absurd.

The whole article was thought with the idea that 100% of the dogs look for a higher rank and that is not true. Maybe is just the choose of terms once again, "dominance" for sure sounds bad, change it to "benevolent leader" or "Mom & Dad" and the whole perception changes too. Truly dominat dogs towards humans are rare, just like truly human aggressive dogs are rare too but there is no doubt that they both exist.

Maybe it is like ghosts, you dont believe in them until you actually see a real one.

Hierarchy does exist, but you will find that dogs are much better at it than humans seem to be.  One does not bite when a growl will do.  So, perhaps it's good that many humans are learning that no punishment need happen when a GOOD explanation will do.  And, that absence of a reward can be used rather than a leash jerk.  The beauty of this evolution is that we can now communicate with dogs in a way that makes it possible for them to think, make right decisions, and not just inhibit behavior. 

I'm amused that you would say this: "this article was intended for all those people that have never picked up a book about dogs", since it is equally true that you often choose to refute those who have picked up many books about dogs, in addition to spending years handling and training them.  Very amusing, indeed.

spiritdogs

Hierarchy does exist, but you will find that dogs are much better at it than humans seem to be.  One does not bite when a growl will do.  So, perhaps it's good that many humans are learning that no punishment need happen when a GOOD explanation will do.  And, that absence of a reward can be used rather than a leash jerk.  The beauty of this evolution is that we can now communicate with dogs in a way that makes it possible for them to think, make right decisions, and not just inhibit behavior. 

This has nothing to do with dominance or the lack of, I can have the most submissive dog in the planet but if he/she still want to chase rabbits then i will do leash redirections. Not necessarily "dominance" related, just like the article is trying to make it seem with the jumping and bad recall.

I think we all agree here, hierarchy between dogs exist, therefore dominance actually exists (i dont think alpha dogs are picked by democracy voting between the pack members).

I agree with the article that dominance theory should not be used as a general guide, most of the dog problems are just bad manners

Once thing is to refute that clicker is good for something where i think is not, and another is to refute a plain absurd article. The article is trying to make a point with wrong scenarios and stupid examples. If they just say that dominance exist (because they agree it exists) but is more rare that it seems then i would not have a problem with it.