What makes this this relational system of dog training very unique, special and stand out from the pack is its ability to show that appearances can be very deceiving as it relates to the physical picture that is offered via response and as it aligns with relational change. While this approach challenges the popularity of most systems which use learning as a jumping off point I clearly show why so many are left relationally bankrupt when it comes to investing time and money in systems which focus on feelings rather than needs. Meeting the needs of dogs and resolving behavioral issues comes via fulfilling a dog's leadership needs. The ability to work from the level of an intervention allows one to clearly see why certain scripts break down relationally. One issue which has come into focus lately is the effectiveness of using a pack of dogs to to bring an unbalanced dog into a state of balance. While this makes for great television and optics at the physical level what I show is that this is another area where appearances can be deceiving when it comes to meeting a dog owner's expectations when it comes to relational change. To understand a dog's decision making process and how it is influenced via dog and human interactions it to know that the relational dynamics do not always represent the same path at physical and relational level. Dogs can continue to hold onto a level of power within the relational structure of the dog pack. Dogs are able to work certain relational angles to maintain this hold which brings them into a state of control rather than change.
The best way to guarantee that relational change is advancing at the level which will impact a dog's decision making process is to focus on relational change via trainer and dog rather than using a pack of dogs. While working with a dog pack can help the trainer gain relational insight and experience which transfers over to helping owners it is not a effective and reliable pathway based on the relational dynamics in play.
0 Comments
The Academic Divide By Dale McCluskey www.k9pack.com The real searcher after truth will not receive the old because it is old, or reject the new because it is new. He will not believe men because they are dead, or contradict them because they are alive. With him an utterance is worth the truth, the reason it contains, without the slightest regard to the author. He may have been a king or serf -- a philosopher or servant, -- but the utterance neither gains nor loses in truth or reason. Its value is absolutely independent of the fame or station of the man who gave it to the world. -- Robert G. Ingersoll - (1833-1899) American political leader, orator To better understand what is happening within the dog training community one needs to gain deeper insight into what is fueling this ongoing discourse between behaviorists and traditional trainers. You may not be aware of it, but there's a quiet war raging right now in the dog-training world. It's a conflict between positive reinforcement (+R) trainers and behaviorists like Ian Dunbar and Nicholas Dodman who base their methods on the principles of learning theory. They've pitted themselves against traditional or dominance trainers like Cesar Millan and the Monks of New Skete, who follow the alpha theory. (Lee 2010) While many are under the opinion that behavioral science is losing the training wars this may be premature based on the weapons within the behaviorist arsenal. The increasing popularity of the behaviorist model of training has been fueled by an aggressive marketing campaign aimed at appealing to the feelings and emotions of the dog owner. The APDT quickly grew to become the world's largest organization dedicated to the training of pet dogs. Since its inception there has been a worldwide explosion of puppy classes run by reward-based trainers. (Lee 2009) Many trainers have taken full advantage of this marriage of behavioral science and the exploitation of conditioning along with a feelings and emotions agenda. Along the same lines, I no longer use the words “obedience” or “command” in association with training. According to The Oxford Dictionary, “obedience” means “submissive to another's will.” The word “command” has its negative connotations as well. Instead I use the words “training” and “cue.” Because training should be a fun and positive experience for both the dog and its guardians, I have chosen to remove all words from my training program that imply unpleasant associations or any type of force. At that point in my career I didn't realize there were many trainers already using positive methods. I was convinced I was the only one in my city with the beliefs I held, and I felt very much alone. Since then, I have met so many of like-mind, and I've learned so much. I continue to learn every day. I'm happy to say, my city now consists almost totally of positive reinforcement dog trainers. (Laurette 2006) This unholy union of behavioral science with feelings and emotions has created the perfect storm which is raging against nature. As behaviorists continue to promote and market an agenda fueled by feelings and emotions it has become clear that popularity has become the focus. The saying that a good defense consists of a great offense takes on new meaning when it comes to how behaviorists market and attempt to validate their interpretation and approach to the dog and human dynamic. This aggressive campaign to marginalize and target those who go against the current of behavioral science has done little to stop the ongoing questions and challenges. Cesar Millan has become the target as a charming, one-man wrecking ball directed at 40 years of progress in understanding and shaping dog behavior and in developing non punitive, reward-based training programs (Derr 2006) Behaviorists continue to demand validation and that their voices to be heard while at the same time ignoring and dismissing serious questions and concerns associated with their methodology and approach to the dog and human relationship. The following responses to the Time Magazine Article Dog Training and the Myth of Alpha-Male Training are typical of the public attitude towards the “as is” science. C.S Dominance theory is dead. Talk it til your blue in the face. To ignore the numerous studies and to keep bringing this down to one or two people is ridiculous. The evidence has mounted. Organizations comprised of 1000s of professionals have researched this through and through. It's time to move forward. If you smoke and still do - you at least admit it's not good for your health, no? Well, if you believe in dominance...start to at least admit and digest the fact that these thoughts are antiquated and recognize that the evidence has been presented. Response J.S Maybe in your mind. You can talk until your blue in the face. One or Two people? More like hundreds of thousands of dog owners recognize it is not wrong or have you not been reading the posts here and at the yahoo Time article site or visited the Dog whisperer site or the Dog Whisperer Yahoo Group. The majority of posters recognize that dominance theory is alive and well and believe it and have seen the results on our own dogs. You PHDs can have fun writing your journal articles that the common person cares nothing about debunking dominance theory for the rest of your lives. It's not going to change the minds of us who believe what we see with our own eyes and have common sense. What does smoking have to do with this argument? There is no way to make a reasonable analogy. Where is this so called evidence you have? Hidden in some PHD Journal Article somewhere? Response by another poster TimidDog "The evidence is probably in some biased PHD study that skews the results to make the the theory work." Funny you should say that, since that's exactly how the Alpha/Dominance Theory of wolf packs originally came about. Even the guy that came up with it says the original wolf study was skewed. That's what I hate about those silly PhD's and scientists, they are more interested in continuing to learn and evolve than they are in proving they were right fifty years ago. In reality the entrenched positions behaviorists have taken regarding dominance leaves them held within a defensive position. To change their views regarding this issue would cause their model of training to collapse. Reputations and careers sold out to this model of training would be over in an instant. The following exchange between myself and a behaviorist on a popular internet dog discussion forum illustrates the typical response to specific questions and challenges to this method of training. My question "Tell me why some owners are successful while others fail using the same exact models of training ???? " Answer by behaviorist Human error : "bad timing"and inconsistent. Which is true for ALL types of dog training. My question " Conditioning is used within several models of training however the behaviorist model of training has a much higher failure rate, why is that ??? " Behaviorist response Can I see YOUR research and evidence on this before answering?? My question "Why do owners who connect with dogs on a higher emotional level have the most behavior problems and issues ????" Behaviorist answer Can I see YOUR research and evidence on this before answering?? My Question " When some dogs move around for treats and clickers and behavior issues don't diminish why is that ????? " (This question is regarding why some owners succeed why others fail using the exact same devices, methods, techniques and interactions) Behaviorist Response Can I see YOUR research and evidence on this before answering?? This type of avoidance to questions is typical when you begin to pin down and focus in on the problems and issues. Behaviorists are clearly against the wall based on the type of psychology they have aligned themselves with and the positions they have taken regarding dominance. The behaviorist response of bad timing and inconsistent training leads to ultimately blaming the dog and or owner when meaningful influence fails to grab hold and unwanted behavior issues fail to diminish. I remember reading somewhere that if something isn't working, Don't Shoot the Dog! Of course McConnell didn't shoot the dogs in this case, but she did give up on them. That's the really sad thing. She won't give up on her belief in her beloved behavioral science -even though that's what the data is telling her -- but she will give up on her dogs. McConnell had 4 years to "condition" these behavioral problems away, with little or no success. What are those 4 years of data telling her? That sometimes conditioning doesn't work. Why doesn't it work? Because it's based on an inaccurate and incomplete model of learning, one that fits perfectly with how rats learn to run through a maze, or how pigeons trapped inside a box learn how to peck a lever to get a piece of food. But in this case, it didn't work to foster a positive social connection between two well -bred dogs, when dogs, as a species, are inherently, with no conditioning needed, the most social animal on earth. I'm not blaming Patricia McConnell for anything except for a failure to re-consider, re-evaluate, and re-think the validity of behavioral science. (Lee 2009) The until death do us part mentality that behaviorists such as McConnell have with the bridge is out science delusion illustrates the reason why academics have a credibility problem with this issue. What is seen from the surface through conditioning gives behaviorists the illusion, or delusion, that bridges can be built even when they can't. This suicide pack behaviorists have with behavioral science illustrates why this debate, discourse and division shows no signs of abating anytime soon. Behaviorists feel they hold to keys to knowledge and are the final governing authority when it comes to understanding the dog and human relationship. References Alpha Theory;Why it doesn't work (2010). American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2008). Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals Bradshaw, John. (2009). Dominance in Domestic Dogs-Useful construct or bad habit? Call, Josep. (2003). Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) Are Sensitive to the Attentional State of Humans, Journal of Comparative Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 117, No. 3, 257–263 Cherry, Kendra. (2010). The Four Styles of Parenting, About.com Guide, Psychology Coren, Stanley. (2010). Obtaining Status, Rather Than Enforcing Dominance Over Dogs: A Positive Program, Psychology Today. Derr, Mark. (2006). Pack of Lies. DeMar, Gary (1989). Behaviorism Dictionary.com, "influence," in The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Source location: Houghton Mifflin Company. Behavior. 125, 283-313. Dodman, Nicholas (2010). Ethology: The Study of Animal Behavior. Dunbar, Ian (2010). Science Based Dog Training – With Feeling Dunn, Ellen (2010). The Parent and the Pendulum Fact-index.com (2011) Animal Cognition. Frijda, Nico (2000). The influence of emotions on beliefs. University Press, Cambridge. Hackbarth, H. (2008). Comparison of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Different Training Methods: Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar and Quitting Signal. Hannover Univ. Hare, Brian (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.9 No.9 September 2005, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, Germany Julian Rubin. (2008) Operant Conditioning Kelly, Lee Charles. (2009). Of Mice and Mutts: Is Behavioral Science Failing Our Dogs Kelly, Lee Charles. (2009). Of Mice and Mutts; Why Behavioral Science is Losing the Training Wars. Laurette, Norma Jeanne. (2006) The Dominance Theory Lloyd, Robin. (2006). Emotional Wiring Different in Men and Women, Live Science Lockman, Darcy. (2010). Rehabilitate Your Reactive Dog, The Dog Daily. Mech, L. D. (2008). What Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf? International Wolf, Winter 2008, pp. 8 Mech, L. D. (2010). Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Millan, Cesar (2006). Cesar's Way Ogburn, Philip (1998). Comparison of behavioral and physiological responses of dogs wearing two different types of collars. University of Minnesota, Department of Physiology College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University. Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex, Lecture One Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex, Lecture Two Perry, Gaille. (1992). Aggression in Dogs: A Complete Review. Plataforma SINC (2009). Dogs Are Aggressive If They Are Trained Badly. Remote (2010) Examining our opinions about dog training and other things. Ryan, David. (2010) Why Won't Dominance Die? Sands, Jennifer. (2002). Social dominance, aggression and faecal glucocorticoid levels in a wild population of wolves, Canis lupus. Department of Ecology, Montana State University. Sprain, Leah. (2006) Sending Signals from the Ivory Tower: Barriers to Connecting Academic Research to the Public Sizer, Sally (2010). Calming Signals in Dogs. Temple Grandin. (2005). Animals in Translation, pp 309 Thagard, Paul (2006). How Cognition Meets Emotion: Beliefs, Desires, and Feelings as Neural Activity, University of Waterloo University of Bristol (2009). Using 'Dominance' To Explain Dog Behavior Is Old Hat. Vetinfo (2010) Understanding dog memory: Associative Memory Versus Real Memory: Negative Versus Positive Associations Waggoner, Brad (2010). Operant Conditioning Welfare in Dog Training. (2010) What's Wrong with using 'Dominance' to Explain the Behavior of Dogs? Wynne, C. D. L. (2001). Animal Cognition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Yin, S. 2007. Dominance Versus Leadership in Dog Training. Compendium Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian 29:4-32 Object Lesson By Dale McCluskey Mind & Body Kinetics - Relational Dog Training Guide 2014 “ If we put all our faith and trust in appearances we can be deceived “ Dale McCluskey The issue of objectification is one of the central interpretive themes within this relational model. Within this interpretative script the reasons why so many dog owners feel blindsided by an aggressive incident which seems to come out of nowhere starts to make sense. The reason why so many feel frustrated by a lack of results using certain methodologies and ideologies becomes clear. Like the narcissist whose motives don't match the relational disconnect which can happen if we are putting all our truth and faith in appearances. The reason why a dog is following and clinging to one owner while avoiding others is relationally motivated. The co-dependent dynamic this creates makes it very problematic at the intervention level. While the ability to self evaluate ones own level of relational misalignment is possible it is very difficult based on the psychology involved and relational disconnect. The parenting model helps build the bridge with understanding and gaining insight into these difficulties. The ability to discern the level to which the owner is being objectified comes from putting behavior within the proper relational context. By adding objectification into the equation one can see what certain methodologies fail to have the type of impact needed to make a difference. For example getting a dog to wait or controlling resources often does very little to decrease the level of objectification while increasing the level of relational change. This type of waiting game plays directly into the hands of the power holding dog who is very happy to keep their distance. This type of approach allows the dog to remain out of the zone of direct influence and continue to hold onto power and position. When viewing through the relational lens one can see the dog objectifying even as they are made to wait in a holding pattern by the owner. This is where a physical and relational disconnect can happen with methodologies which make a dog wait for food etc. This is where waiting offers the appearance of good behavior from the level of physical response but may not represent relational change is actually taking hold. To test if the physical response represents the same relationally bringing the dog within the follower script will provide the answer. This is why follower moments are critical to ensure everything is as it appears. Once a dog has gained a high level of power they will start to even disengage away from the objectified owner. While the dog continues to objectify the empowering possessive attachment is traded as the dog is rejecting even the possibility of being brought under any meaningful influence. Within this scenario the owner is unable to get the dog to accept the leash or be directed. This situation becomes one of managing and controlling a situation which has reached the tipping point. The solution is for the owner to begin to enter the dog's area within a leadership state of mind with the intent of bringing the dog within the follower moment script. Once this level of relational misalignment has been reached the owner must totally change how they think. Often dogs which reach this level because the owner is unpacking highly emotional baggage into the relationship. This is when the owner sees the dog as a wounded child who is suffering from some sort of past emotional trauma. Reversing course is possible with the right attitude and game plan. As the owner begins to enter the dogs area with confident leadership energy it acts as a counter force which begins to allow the follower moment script to take hold. The Mind and Body Connection
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it is tied to everything else in the universe. John Muir (1838-1914) U. S. naturalist, explorer. By Dale McCluskey www.k9pack.com Dogs are pack animals. The depth of this pack connection goes further than most people comprehend or understand as it links with mind, body and nature. How dogs communicate with each other through this mind and body connection provides the snapshot for assessing strength and weakness. Dogs know the overall path, intent and characteristics of the owner' mind within this strength and weakness, body and mind connection and framework. This connection is both a proximity one and main influencing agent based on who spends the most time with the dog. This connection begins to take hold and intensify with any dog or human within a few feet. The interplay and reactions are based on the psychological path of the human and level of influence and role of the dog within its pack. Just like how nature is intertwined so are both mind and body. This is where physical strength blends into the will and strength of the mind. It is this intent, character and seriousness of the mind, which represents strength. Physical responses, which are aggressive may not create meaningful influence based on how the overall mind is framed. Often a dog owner reacts from a buildup of frustration through an emotional response. This is where a disconnect happens from how the owner perceives their own psychology and how the dog perceives it based on nature's standard. Through this interwoven mind and body connection a dog knows the mind of the owner, its current path and intent. A dog quickly creates a personality assessment based on these characteristics. To see the unseen and the depth of this pack connection it is only revealed by direct interaction without separation from this pack influence. Recent studies which focus on this intertwined relationship and connection confirm that more is happening than what is seen from the surface. Taken together, the current results show that dogs were highly sensitive to the experimenter’s attentional state. There are still many unanswered questions, and future research on animal social cognition should thus be explicitly comparative and should attempt to establish the full range of social–cognitive skills for a wide range of animal species. Only recently it has been discovered that dogs are interesting to science for another reason. It appears that dogs have evolved specialized skills for reading human social and communicative behavior. (Hare 2005) It is conceivable that dogs may have evolved some special predisposition for interacting with and communicating with humans (Lorenz, 1964; Miklo´si, Polga´rdi, Topa´l, & Csa´nyi, 1998; Mitchell & Thompson, 1986). While recent scientific studies of dog and human interactions hint that a more complex level of communication is happening between dogs and humans the break through moment remains in doubt based on this behaviorist way of thinking being deeply embedded into our scientific studies and academic institutions. (Lee 2009) Modern researchers in animal cognition are in most cases firmly behaviorist in methodology, even though they differ sharply from the behaviorist philosophy. (Hare 2005) While many have been indoctrinated to this behaviorist way of thinking others are starting to question if behavioral science can provide the answers and resolve the discourse happening within the dog training world. Many non-experts in the field, and a small minority of experts, find the scientific approach too cautious, and feel that it tends to underrate the intellectual achievements of animals by insisting on behavioral evidence. (Cognition 2011) One of the main stumbling blocks to this pack connection being revealed fully is associated with behavioral science and more specifically conditioning. Behavioral psychology, also known as behaviorism, is a theory of learning based upon the idea that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning. Conditioning occurs through interaction with the environment. According to behaviorism, behavior can be studied in a systematic and observable manner with no consideration of internal mental states. (Cherry 2008) Through the framework created by Watson, Skinner and Pavlov the focus of research shifted almost entirely on how dogs, and humans, reacted to various stimuli based on biology and physical response. (Demar 1989) The decision to rely on the observable was reconciled at the time by the question of whether psychology could be used as reliable science. But if we attempt an approach from this science of psychology to the problem confronting us we shall be building our superstructure on a science which has no claim to exactness as compared even with physiology. In fact it is still open to discussion whether psychology is a natural science, or whether it can be regarded as a science at all. (Pavlov 1927) These ideas and concepts attempted to focus entirely on observable behaviors which makes it is easier to quantify and collect data and information when conducting research. (Cherry 2008) It is clear these ideas and concepts dumb-ed down nature at a level which focused on the body and not the mind. When viewed from the perspective of Nature and how a dog's mind is governed and pulled by the influence of the pack it becomes clear why Pavlov was having difficulty with controlling the dog's reactions to human presence. It was thought at the beginning of our research that it would be sufficient simply to isolate the experimenter in the research chamber with the dog on its stand, and to refuse admission to anyone else during the course of an experiment. But this precaution was found to be wholly inadequate, since the experimenter, however still he might try to be, was himself a constant source of a large number of stimuli. (Pavlov 1923) Dogs are pulled to other dogs and people, it is the pivoting point of how a dog's mind is influenced through nature and the pack connection. Pavlov's difficulties and concerns during his experiments with studying dogs came from this separation. Unless we are careful to take special precautions the success of the whole investigation may be jeopardized, and we should get hopelessly lost as soon as we began to seek for cause and effect among so many and various influences, so intertwined and entangled as to form a veritable chaos. (Pavlov 1927) Whatever was to come from this study based on separation of the dog from pack influence would not be a reliable standard with how a dog's mind is really influenced and governed. The foundation that behaviorists have attempted to build based on conditioning methodology has proven unreliable and inconsistent as a result. Unfortunately this behaviorist indoctrination has contaminated studies, which attempt to push beyond the boundaries of behavioral science to grasp the meaning and depth of this mind and body connection. Many continue to flounder and fixate on what is seen from the surface as it links to devices, conditioning and what is observable. The issue of emotion with how information is filtered and sifted through our cognitive processes only further binds our ability to see beyond the surface. The mind is influenced by emotions and feelings which makes the persons mind susceptible to a certain bias which impacts the persons ability to be objective. Our cognitive process could best be described as the tree from which all truth comes. We all filter information differently based on our beliefs. With the study of living things our cognitive framework is intertwined with certain emotions and feelings which can interfere in our ability to remain objective. What motivates the search for truth or halts its pursuit is determined by the character of the individual. Emotions such as interest, curiosity, wonder, and surprise are inextricable from the cognitive processes of scientific investigation, guiding researchers to generate important questions and to try to produce acceptable answers to them. (Thagood 2006) When our emotions and feelings collide with objective reasoning than critical thinking is not able to move us in the right direction with finding answers. When we feel good about how well our beliefs fit together, there is no way for us to tell whether in fact the coherence is really a matter of the goodness of fit of hypotheses with the evidence, or instead a matter of goodness of fit of hypotheses with our personal goals. (Thagood 2006) A level of bias would explain why many are holding fast onto behavioral science as a means to build bridges within nature, which cannot be built. The agenda of exploitation has allowed the smoke and mirror behaviorist sideshow to remain opened for business. When you consider how conditioning is used combined with the domino effect when meaningful influence grabs hold the behaviorist model appears to make sense from the surface. When you begin testing the waters of the behaviorist model of training with high drive dogs the psychology attached as a life preserver begins to rise to the surface. Unresolved behavior issues get humanized and treated with medications while vets make profit from this self-fueling framework. In the end the real losers in this deal are the dogs and owners. References Alpha Theory;Why it doesn't work (2010). American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2008). Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals Bradshaw, John. (2009). Dominance in Domestic Dogs-Useful construct or bad habit? Call, Josep. (2003). Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) Are Sensitive to the Attentional State of Humans, Journal of Comparative Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 117, No. 3, 257–263 Cherry, Kendra. (2010). The Four Styles of Parenting, About.com Guide, Psychology Coren, Stanley. (2010). Obtaining Status, Rather Than Enforcing Dominance Over Dogs: A Positive Program, Psychology Today. Derr, Mark. (2006). Pack of Lies. DeMar, Gary (1989). Behaviorism Dictionary.com, "influence," in The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Source location: Houghton Mifflin Company. Behavior. 125, 283-313. Dodman, Nicholas (2010). Ethology: The Study of Animal Behavior. Dunbar, Ian (2010). Science Based Dog Training – With Feeling Dunn, Ellen (2010). The Parent and the Pendulum Fact-index.com (2011) Animal Cognition. Frijda, Nico (2000). The influence of emotions on beliefs. University Press, Cambridge. Hackbarth, H. (2008). Comparison of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Different Training Methods: Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar and Quitting Signal. Hannover Univ. Hare, Brian (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.9 No.9 September 2005, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, Germany Julian Rubin. (2008) Operant Conditioning Kelly, Lee Charles. (2009). Of Mice and Mutts: Is Behavioral Science Failing Our Dogs Kelly, Lee Charles. (2009). Of Mice and Mutts; Why Behavioral Science is Losing the Training Wars. Laurette, Norma Jeanne. (2006) The Dominance Theory Lloyd, Robin. (2006). Emotional Wiring Different in Men and Women, Live Science Lockman, Darcy. (2010). Rehabilitate Your Reactive Dog, The Dog Daily. Mech, L. D. (2008). What Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf? International Wolf, Winter 2008, pp. 8 Mech, L. D. (2010). Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Millan, Cesar (2006). Cesar's Way Ogburn, Philip (1998). Comparison of behavioral and physiological responses of dogs wearing two different types of collars. University of Minnesota, Department of Physiology College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University. Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex, Lecture One Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex, Lecture Two Perry, Gaille. (1992). Aggression in Dogs: A Complete Review. Plataforma SINC (2009). Dogs Are Aggressive If They Are Trained Badly. Remote (2010) Examining our opinions about dog training and other things. Ryan, David. (2010) Why Won't Dominance Die? Sands, Jennifer. (2002). Social dominance, aggression and faecal glucocorticoid levels in a wild population of wolves, Canis lupus. Department of Ecology, Montana State University. Sprain, Leah. (2006) Sending Signals from the Ivory Tower: Barriers to Connecting Academic Research to the Public Sizer, Sally (2010). Calming Signals in Dogs. Temple Grandin. (2005). Animals in Translation, pp 309 Thagard, Paul (2006). How Cognition Meets Emotion: Beliefs, Desires, and Feelings as Neural Activity, University of Waterloo University of Bristol (2009). Using 'Dominance' To Explain Dog Behavior Is Old Hat. Vetinfo (2010) Understanding dog memory: Associative Memory Versus Real Memory: Negative Versus Positive Associations Waggoner, Brad (2010). Operant Conditioning Welfare in Dog Training. (2010) What's Wrong with using 'Dominance' to Explain the Behavior of Dogs? Wynne, C. D. L. (2001). Animal Cognition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Yin, S. 2007. Dominance Versus Leadership in Dog Training. Compendium Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian 29:4-32 Social Hierarchy
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. By Dale McCluskey www.k9pack.com 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. Dominance Theory
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~Francis Bacon - 1620 By Dale McCluskey www.k9pack.com From - The Mind and Body Connection 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. References Alpha Theory;Why it doesn't work (2010). American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2008). Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals Bradshaw, John. (2009). Dominance in Domestic Dogs-Useful construct or bad habit? Call, Josep. (2003). Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) Are Sensitive to the Attentional State of Humans, Journal of Comparative Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 117, No. 3, 257–263 Cherry, Kendra. (2010). The Four Styles of Parenting, About.com Guide, Psychology Coren, Stanley. (2010). Obtaining Status, Rather Than Enforcing Dominance Over Dogs: A Positive Program, Psychology Today. Derr, Mark. (2006). Pack of Lies. DeMar, Gary (1989). Behaviorism Dictionary.com, "influence," in The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Source location: Houghton Mifflin Company. Behavior. 125, 283-313. Dodman, Nicholas (2010). Ethology: The Study of Animal Behavior. Dunbar, Ian (2010). Science Based Dog Training – With Feeling Dunn, Ellen (2010). The Parent and the Pendulum Fact-index.com (2011) Animal Cognition. Frijda, Nico (2000). The influence of emotions on beliefs. University Press, Cambridge. Hackbarth, H. (2008). Comparison of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Different Training Methods: Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar and Quitting Signal. Hannover Univ. Hare, Brian (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.9 No.9 September 2005, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, Germany Julian Rubin. (2008) Operant Conditioning Kelly, Lee Charles. (2009). Of Mice and Mutts: Is Behavioral Science Failing Our Dogs Kelly, Lee Charles. (2009). Of Mice and Mutts; Why Behavioral Science is Losing the Training Wars. Laurette, Norma Jeanne. (2006) The Dominance Theory Lloyd, Robin. (2006). Emotional Wiring Different in Men and Women, Live Science Lockman, Darcy. (2010). Rehabilitate Your Reactive Dog, The Dog Daily. Mech, L. D. (2008). What Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf? International Wolf, Winter 2008, pp. 8 Mech, L. D. (2010). Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Millan, Cesar (2006). Cesar's Way Ogburn, Philip (1998). Comparison of behavioral and physiological responses of dogs wearing two different types of collars. University of Minnesota, Department of Physiology College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University. Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex, Lecture One Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex, Lecture Two Perry, Gaille. (1992). Aggression in Dogs: A Complete Review. Plataforma SINC (2009). Dogs Are Aggressive If They Are Trained Badly. Remote (2010) Examining our opinions about dog training and other things. Ryan, David. (2010) Why Won't Dominance Die? Sands, Jennifer. (2002). Social dominance, aggression and faecal glucocorticoid levels in a wild population of wolves, Canis lupus. Department of Ecology, Montana State University. Sprain, Leah. (2006) Sending Signals from the Ivory Tower: Barriers to Connecting Academic Research to the Public Sizer, Sally (2010). Calming Signals in Dogs. Temple Grandin. (2005). Animals in Translation, pp 309 Thagard, Paul (2006). How Cognition Meets Emotion: Beliefs, Desires, and Feelings as Neural Activity, University of Waterloo University of Bristol (2009). Using 'Dominance' To Explain Dog Behavior Is Old Hat. Vetinfo (2010) Understanding dog memory: Associative Memory Versus Real Memory: Negative Versus Positive Associations Waggoner, Brad (2010). Operant Conditioning Welfare in Dog Training. (2010) What's Wrong with using 'Dominance' to Explain the Behavior of Dogs? Wynne, C. D. L. (2001). Animal Cognition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Yin, S. 2007. Dominance Versus Leadership in Dog Training. Compendium Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian 29:4-32 The narrative which many behaviorists and trainers promote that response via the treat based learning script represents a "like minded state" and that relational change is advancing and unwanted behavior is diminishing is simply not always true. In fact the further you take training from the level of an intervention the more likely that response is disconnected from change. Those who market learning as some sort of new age science are the same type of people who would waste years living with a narcissist before finally coming to the realization that the person was merely going through the motions and really didn't give a damn about them. The issue with how behaviorists and others promote this script is that they are so blinded by their ideology they can't separate themselves from it. This is the reason why dogs are medicated and written off as having some sort of genetic defect when they don't conform to this script. I would really encourage those seeking answers to check out my videos on my site. They will help you navigate this and other critical issues which could impact how successful you are with your dog.
To understand dogs as the relational beings they really are is to know that dog training is really an intervention. It is understanding the relational bridge which needs to be built based on where the owner is standing within the pack relationship. The ability to see where the owner is standing comes from the ability to connect all the relational dots including behavior and connect the final dot to the dog's decision making process. It is knowing that the dog has already pegged the owner as weak based on how they are thinking and connecting relationally with their dog. Treats, clickers, retractable leashes all follow the path of this thinking therefore are very problematic when it comes to bringing the owner into right relationship with their dog. Relationally this is why response can become disconnected as it aligns with the learning script and fool many into thinking meaningful change is advancing when in reality it isn't. Insight into how a dog's decision making process responds and is influenced within the parameters of the relational script comes from surrendering how one thinks. The confidence in the ability to come out on the other side regardless of the situation follows this path. It is the most difficult and rewarding at the same time.
Many look at an interaction, technique, method or device from an emotional and physical point of view rather than a relational perspective. This is why often a disconnect takes place between what is seen from the surface and anything more deep and meaningful happening between both dog and owner. To understand Nature is to know that everything is connected and has meaning. There are no coincidences or accidents. Dogs are relational beings and know the real deal when it comes to strength and weakness at the relational level. When a technique or method is employed it is not separated from the person but rather takes on deeper meaning. Physical force is a manifestation of the person and is not just kinetic energy. Relationally physical interaction takes on a different meaning and context within the intervention script. The intent and purpose is to change how the person thinks and connects. What is clearly evident is that dogs actually know whether the owner is changing and fulfilling their rightful role in nature or merely going through the motions. In the coming weeks I will be completing numerous videos exposing the trash science of dog training and those promoting it. I will be showing the facts and connecting the dots to help others gain insight into this very serious issue involving this ideology which more often than not does not promote the level of relational change needed between dogs and owners. Those who promote learning ideology as the second coming to the dog training world are playing a shell game when it comes to learning theory and the dominance issue. What I clearly show is that response does not always represent relational change is taking place as dogs go through the motions of the learning script via motivating agents such as treats. Those who are overselling this ideology are not qualifying the type of influence taking hold between dogs and owners via response. Further they are not putting the dog's decision making process to the test to see if unwanted behavior is diminishing. The standard is if it looks good and feels good it must be good. Many who accept this ideology at face value are failing within this script and don't even know it until they return home with their dogs where the real test takes place. What I show is that dogs are relational beings and their decision making process is influenced at this level. Those who promote this ideology as a type of end run around bringing a dog under leadership are not going any deeper than what is seen from the surface. Many people are being deceived. I would encourage those interested in knowing the facts to check out my videos where I will be breaking this ideology apart and revealing the truth.
|