By Dale McCluskey
An ocean traveler has even more vividly the impression that the ocean is made of waves than that it is made of water. Arthur S. Eddington (1882-1944) English astronomer and physicist. Behaviorists use social hierarchy as a main pillar to support their positions regarding dominance theory. While promoted as being of sound mind and body the science label attached to this issue is far from passing the minimum standard with making it through nature's front door. The “pack” and “dominance” theory of domestic dogs is a harmful meme. It prevents many owners from understanding their dogs, causes untold misery for both and is perpetuated by well-meaning but uninformed dog trainers around the world. It is proving extremely resistant to extinction. (Ryan 2010) This social hierarchy pillar begins to crumble once you begin to gain insight into the real meaning of strength and weakness, dominance and influence beyond what is seen from the surface. What dominance represents is not revealed to the casual observer from the surface of the relationship. It is revealed to those who have both feet in nature and have surrender to its already established laws. It is revealed through the mind and body connection. To gain better insight into how certain branches of behavioral science attempt to support each other under the weight of ongoing challenges a better understanding is needed into the branch called ethology. Behaviorism and ethology are two different ways of studying animal behavior; one is confined largely to the laboratory (behaviorism), and the other is based on field studies (ethology). Each tells us something different about an animal's response, but the conclusions from both disciplines, taken together, explain all that we see and understand about animal behavior. (Dodman 2010) Although ethology appears to take the path away from the lab and into the natural environment of the dog it merely a branch from the same behaviorist tree. Its narrow definition as it links with the observable physical force blends with the underpinnings of behaviorism in its adherence with sticking strictly to the physiological point of view. (Skinner 1927) This behaviorist view regarding dominance can be seen through the one dimensional snapshot and image taken from the surface of the relationship. Among ethologists, dominance is normally defined as ‘‘an attribute of the pattern of repeated, antagonistic interactions between two individuals, characterized by a consistent outcome in favor of the same dyad member and a default yielding response of its opponent rather than escalation. The status of the consistent winner is dominant and that of the loser subordinate’’ (Drews, 1993). How force is interpreted and used to support the behaviorist position regarding dominance provides no depth beyond the surface of the behaviorist view. The information revealed by direct and intensive human and dog interaction within the pack relationship provides the standard from which everything else is measured. The nails which behaviorists use to help hold their framework together relies on the feelings and emotions of dog owners to help support its cracked foundation. If owners believe that a dog does something to ‘achieve status’ or ‘control them’ or ‘be the boss’ it naturally tends to lead people to use coercive training techniques. This relies on inducing a negative emotional state (e.g. fear or anxiety) in a dog in order to inhibit behavior, which has the risk of inducing further undesired behavior or having a negative effect on welfare, as described further in ‘What are the problems of using training techniques that induce fear or pain?’ (Welfare 2010) What is extracted from social hierarchy by behaviorists, as it relates to force and authority, is twisted and used as fuel to appeal to an owner focused feelings and emotions based agenda. The behaviorist concept of learning (Refer to learning), as it connects with the exploitation of conditioning, is interjected into social hierarchy mix to help prop up the position regarding dominance. Studies of interactions by dogs shows no evidence of fixed ‘hierarchical’ relationships, but rather relationships between individuals which are based on learning. The lack of observable physical confrontation and encounters between pack members plays into the interpretation that the pack consists of co-operative family groups, where the parents ‘guide’ their offspring. (Welfare 2009) This nudging by behaviorists with using language to paint an image of nature shows the breakdown with understanding what dominance represents as it connects with both mind and body. The ability for dogs to assess and interpret each other’s strength or weakness through this connection represents stability and balance within the pack. Each member of the pack is keenly aware of their chances of winning a confrontation before the engagement even happens. This reduces the amount of physical confrontations to a minimum based on how interplay takes place within this structure. Behavioral science does not have the ability to gain traction on what dominance represents based on dismissing this mind and body connection. What is revealed is only a one dimensional image instead of three dimensional which shows the real meaning of strength and weakness as it connects to nature. Hence, it is commonly suggested that a desire ‘to be dominant’ actually drives behavior, especially aggression, in the domestic dog. By contrast, many recent studies of wolf packs have questioned whether there is any direct correspondence between dominance within a relationship and antagonistic behavior. (Bradshaw 2009) The connection of the critical dot from the dominant role to the intensity and frequency of unwanted behaviors is lost on those who align with behavioral science. How social hierarchy is used by behaviorists exposes the motives and intent with how the issue of dominance is shaped to fit into an agenda fueled by feelings and emotions. In the last several decades, our understanding of dominance theory and of the behavior of domesticated animals and their wild counterparts has grown considerably, leading to updated views. (AVSAB – 2008) While this statement pertaining to updated views may be referring to David Mech's historical ‘mistake’ in the interpretation of wolf behavior and dominance, nature's laws have never changed in this regard. Early observations of captive wolves gave the impression that wolves live in groups dominated by the “alpha wolf” which got its position through fighting and aggressive behaviors. However these initial observations were hasty and faulty. Early publications, such as The Wolf: Ecology and the Behavior of an Endangered Species. published in 1970, relied on the flawed observations and since little information existed to challenge it many other publications relied on those initial books to provide information unknowingly spreading incorrect assumptions. After biologists, such as L. David Mech, studied wolves in their natural habitat some ideas were revised including the one about a strict linear hierarchy. In 1999 and 2000 articles like “Alpha Status, Dominance and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs” and “Leadership in Wolf, Canis lupus, Packs” were published (respectively) to correct the misinformation. (Alpha 2010) The changing of position by front line behavioral scientists such as Mech represents the problems associated with those who have taken entrenched positions regarding dominance. The sold out attitudes by those who continue to push forward regardless of the ongoing questions and challenges creates the appearance that behaviorists are manipulating the facts and the science to make the square peg fit into the round hole. It is clear from recent behaviorist studies from dominance and attempt to make it fit. mark deer caught in the headlights with his anti cesar millan ny times article "pack of Lies"9/18/2014 Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~Francis Bacon - 1620 Dominance has become the core issue, rallying position, and stumbling stone for many when it comes to creating harmony and balance within the dog and human relationship. This critical issue has been ignored and dismissed by many even while nature has been providing us with many clues and warnings that something is wrong with how we are connecting with our dogs. Behaviorists have exploited conditioning by giving it a free pass and using it as a bridge to meet the needs of the dog owner rather than the nature needs of the dog. This exploitation of conditioning happens by those who use behavioral science instead of nature as their foundation. How a dog's mind is influenced ,as it aligns with conditioning, is not questioned by many beyond what is seen from the surface. Goodness of fit has taken priority over unanswered questions, inconsistent results, conflict, unresolved behavior issues and failure. The answer to what dominance really represents, as it connects to strength or weakness, is not found on the surface of the relationship. It is discovered with the unveiling of the intertwined connection dogs share with us through Nature and the pack relationship. Insight into the depth of this mind and body connection comes through intense and direct interaction between dog and owner. Only when the dog owner or trainer begins to challenge, confront and face off on the issues associated with conditioning and what is seen from the surface does nature fully reveal itself. It is exposed through the willingness to allow ones own agenda and beliefs to implode. Only by surrendering fully to nature, both mind and body, is truth revealed. For me this happened by pushing beyond what was seen and connecting the dots with what was not seen. As I took on case after case of what were labeled as hopeless failures within conditioning focused models of training I began to look at how owners connected with their dogs at the psychological level for the answers. The same patterns began to appear over and over again with how owners thought about and connected with their dogs. Strength and weakness took on new depth and meaning within this shared mind and body connection. Devices and conditioning began to fade into the background as this cognitive interplay and dynamic began to firm up towards connecting the final dots between dog and owner. While many are starting to make the connection from behavioral science to ongoing issues between dogs and owners the psychology itself, as it links to the mind and body connection, is the real issue and problem. By seeing dogs as either sophisticated lab rats or as 4-legged mini-me's (or both), the behavioral science approach to dog training seems to be failing our furry friends. (Lee -2009) To better understand what is really causing conflict and issues for dogs and owners one has to look a little closer at the type of psychology that behaviorists align with. Those who lean heavily on behavioral science also humanize dogs at a level which follows a path of weakness via emotional psychology and connection through nature and the pack relationship. Without qualifying the type of influence happening between dogs and owners through conditioning many behaviorists fail to connect any dots beyond the positive at all costs agenda. This critical dot established between meaningful influence and the diminishing of unwanted behavior is lost on those who do not understand what dominance represents as it connects to both mind and body. Behaviorist ideas and concepts, terms and conditions hold back and restrain the mind from expanding to understand what dominance represents as it connects to nature. This restrictive way of thinking is contaminated further with the merging of an agenda which is fueled by feelings and emotions. This owner focused agenda aligns with the type of emotion and connection which is perceived as weakness. When unwanted behaviors fail to diminish than meaningful influence has failed to take hold. This is the true standard and litmus test which behaviorists continue to dismiss and ignore. While many behaviorists express concern regarding the recent re-emergence of dominance theory the same concern has not been shown regarding the many serious issues linked to the behaviorist model of training. Continuing questions remain unanswered regarding the consistency of this model of training as well as a objective audit of the actual failure rates. While some behaviorists admit to owners becoming frustrated with lack of success and so, seek help elsewhere they appear unwilling to seek out the underlying issues and causation (Dunbar 2010). The voices calling out to look beyond behavioral science has come up against stiff resistance from an aggressive campaign to sell this model of training “as is” onto the public. The reasons behind this resistance by behaviorists is directly connected to the positions they have taken regarding dominance. The “pack” and “dominance” theory of domestic dogs is a harmful meme. It prevents many owners understanding their dogs, causes untold misery for both and is perpetuated by well-meaning but uninformed dog trainers around the world. It is proving extremely resistant to extinction. (Ryan 2010) This ongoing and aggressive push for unconditional validation by many does not meet even the minimum standard one would expect from the academic community. While misrepresenting what dominance represents this issue is colored up and used as fuel by many to appeal to the emotions and feelings of dog owners. People who rely on dominance theory to train their pets may need to regularly threaten them with aggressive displays or repeatedly use physical force. Conversely, pets subjected to threats or force may not offer submissive behaviors. Instead, they may react with aggression, not because they are trying to be dominant but because the human threatening them makes them afraid. (AVSAB – 2008) This emotional hijacking crosses over to reveal another agenda at work which plays off the feelings of dog owners. Behaviorists have become the dealer of choice for those seeking to keep this emotional high going as long as possible. They have aligned with the type of psychological connection which feeds this emotional addiction. The mission statements of those who align with these views use the anti dominance message to propel this emotional agenda beyond the reach of ongoing issues and questions which will not go away. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior is concerned with the recent re-emergence of dominance theory and forcing dogs and other animals into submission as a means of preventing and correcting behavior problems. For decades, some traditional animal training has relied on dominance theory and has assumed that animals misbehave primarily because they are striving for higher rank. This idea often leads trainers to believe that force or coercion must be used to modify these undesirable behaviors. (AVSAB – 2008) By ignoring, dismissing or denying the already established forces of nature it changes nothing except our ability to direct, control and influence the path we take and role we adopt within the pack relationship. The type of psychology the model and method of training aligns itself with matters more than people realize. While the owner may be really happy based on first impressions and what is seen from the surface they may ultimately fail based on the amount of psychological change needed to break them out of the follower role. Dog training is suffering from a ideology crisis when it comes to meeting our dogs relational needs.
The truth is our feelings and emotions can't be trusted when it comes to separating fact from dog training fiction. The popular training ideology being promoted and market today is based on meeting the emotional needs of owners rather than the relational needs of dogs. Many actually define who they are within this ideology by using it as a means to project their emotions using the dog as a mirror. Within this ideology dogs are not defined as relational beings with needs that are separate but rather they are an extension of it. Dogs are devalued as a result. This ideology is not based on surrendering to nature's governance but rather an ideology based on self. That is the reason why so many are willing to leave the burden of the role on the dog or give up on the dog altogether if the ideology fails to produce results. Within the training framework of this ideology the objective and discerning person will see the contradictions, shifting positions and excuses. The intersecting points of these contradictions involve instinctive behavior, the dominance issue and learning theory. While many attempt to package this ideology off as science the simple truth is that it isn't. While this ideology has sway and power over the masses based on changing values and attitudes it has no authority as it aligns with nature. Those who are focused on giving the ideology the credit are missing the relational half truth of it all. Those who define who they are within this ideology lose the ability to be see anything else. They miss the opportunity to see dogs as the unique beings they really are. |