Recently I have released several videos which provide commentary regarding Victoria Stilwell, Zack George and others who promote and market learning ideology as science based training. Considering that this garbage is the reason so many are struggling to overcome behavior issues with their dog it seems only fair that someone should offer a rebuttal and provide context as to what this ideology represents to dogs. The commentary provided on these videos is intended to offer a different perspective as to what is really happening beyond how things appear. The false narrative that is being promoted regarding dominance and learning is designed to bring focus onto the emotional needs of the owner rather than the relational needs of the dog. The reasons why this ideology works for some and not others is based on what is being promoted relationally to create change according to the needs of both owner and dog. Ultimately the success of any approach can be seen via how it influences the dog's decision making process and in turn unwanted behavior. The problem with treat and clicker based methods is that it leads many into making assumptions via response which simply are not true. The end result can be seen in lack of results, frustration and the blame game.
0 Comments
My “Review of the Thundershirt” video highlights the natural progression of someone seeking of change outside the relational boundary lines established by Nature. The news reporter who is also the owner of the dog featured in the story admits to trying to solve her dog's behavior issues with various agents ranging from favorite toys to medications to no avail. The thundershirt was the newest attempt to solve her dog's issues resulting from stress and anxiety from storms. I have encountered many dog owners who have cycled through the same pattern. Relationally dogs establish certain connections which branch from the relationship. While the tightness of the shirt nudges the dog's decision making process within the follower script however it does not hold for long. This attempt to change of course of behavior ultimately washes out when the dog makes the connection that the person isn't really changing. The shirt separate and apart from the owner does not represent anything meaningful.
Stress and anxiety are the common behavioral issues which exposes the Achilles heal of learning based ideology. It is not naturalistic for a dog to hold the lead role within the dog and human relationship while the owner is controlling various aspects of the relationship. Those who promote this view of the relationship are trying to have their cake and eat it too so to speak. Nature has the last word as behavior issues and problems begin to escalate. In the end no one is happy including the dog. It is impossible to redefine what has already been established from the beginning. In my videos, books and articles I discuss the issue of response and influence and why many are being deceived into making assumptions about relational change which simply are not always true. The fact is if behavior is not diminishing and stress and anxiety is not lifting off the dog than relational change is not happening. Physical response is not always representative of a like minded state the way it is being marketing by many behaviorists and trainers. The solution via the relational model is to effect meaningful change through what are defined as “follower moments”. These represent the building blocks which influence not only the moment they are taking holding but the overall decision making process of the dog. Considering that dogs are relational beings and "strength and or weakness" is part and parcel of this nature shared connection the term "force free" is meaningless beyond a scripted talking point and being used as a way to market and promote learning based ideology. Those who are sold out to learning based ideology attempt to define the dominance issue via physical force. This is only part of the relational picture via nature. Nature only reveals itself to those who invest everything. Discovering relational truth comes via challenging and asking questions which takes you beyond ones comfort zone. Seeing and knowing are two entirely different things.
While many continue to debate the issue of dominance and what it represents beyond being used as a lame talking point at the relational level saying someone is a lame parent would be a better way to express the context of physical force. Of course talking common sense to the anti-dominance group is akin to auditing PETA to assess how many dogs have actually been saved even while they are running naked through the streets holding signs. The issue of dominance is nothing more than a ideological talking point with the intent of igniting the emotions of lame people who are the same ones that spend hours counting to ten in hopes that they can teach their kids to exit the Walmart toy isle. I understand that many want to hijack the leadership issue via their lame duck ideology however the hard truth is in the 4 millions dogs being killed every year in North America and the drop off areas crammed every Saturday at the local shelters from those dropping off their dogs due to unresolved behavior issues. If you take a poll from these dog owners and use the clicker for something useful like counting I guarantee the psychology of what I clearly show will align. Discovering transparent and out in the open proof that this ideology can actually perform the way it is marketed and sold by this group of ideologues is as easy to track down as the ellusive Bigfoot. The recent incident involving LCK getting booted off Psychology today represents the type of divisiveness which has split the dog training community down the middle. While I have never met Mr Kelly in person I understand he is a nice guy who cares deeply for helping dogs and their owners. His mistake however was attempting to free think with a publication that as a whole is a mouthpiece for the trash science agenda while being overrun with academics who are elevating their careers and reputations on the back of this bridge to nowhere ideology. The clock was ticking on LCK the moment he decided to question the very tenants of this Pharisee belief system. The subsequent high fiving by the loyal followers of this ideological nightmare merely demonstrates the self serving arrogance which is clearly getting in the way of seeing dogs as they really are. While it is disappointing what happened to LCK my biggest disappointment us that Psychology Today is not in the form from which I can start my evening fire. Getting a second dog to keep the other one company simply isn't the path to take if you are already experiencing behavior problems with one. The little brother / big brother scenario will begin to take shape as one dog starts to become empowered from the other. Of course you will have one of the dogs which is a lesser problem. Both will stick together however like glue as one is becomes empowered and the other becomes the follower. The end result is that you are on the outside looking in when it comes to both. The first order of business is to begin to take away their power sources while you are becoming the relational pivoting point within the relationship. Getting separate kennels for both is highly recommended as the focus is on severing this unhealthy connection while you are gaining momentum. Treating them as individuals is key. I tell owners not to feel badly as this is merely temporarily until both are brought into follower roles and right relationship with the owner. They come back together again however the core of the relationship will have changed. Dog fights will be a thing of the past as their time interacting will actually be at a level of balance and harmony.
Within this relational model change begins with changing how the owner thinks and connects with their dog at the relational level. It ripples throughout every interaction.
An example of the effectiveness of this relational model can be seen with how it works to take back the walk and eventually get the dog off leash. When taking back the walk the focus is on where the dog's mind is traveling rather than distance. It makes absolutely no sense to move forward and advance if the dog's state of mind represents separation and objectification. This is where I show the owner how to bring the dog's decision making process within the follower script. The focus isn't on avoidance or not allowing the dog to meet other people, dogs etc but rather meeting them via the owner within the follower script. The proactive nature of the relational model re-directs the dog's decision making process prior to unmanageable behavior. The focus is on building the confidence of the dog owner to the level which allows them to overcome everything. Regardless of the level of frustration, panic, fear etc this system wipes the slate clean. It represents new beginnings for both dog and owner. As soon as the issue of dominance is raised with those who you would swear someone just entered the dog training ring and pulled a foreign object out of their waist band. The screams coming from the legion of loyal behaviorists becomes deafening with protests of psycho babble being yelled from the stands. It seems that this group is relationally tone deaf when it comes to making comparisons to how a child’s decision making is influenced within the context of the authoritative model parenting. Accepting that a dog’s decision making process is in fact influenced relationally sends the tenants of this ideology into a death spin from which there is no escape. There is no retreating from the entrenched positions this group has taken regarding the issue of dominance. The vain attempts to discredit the dominance issue by using learning theory as a support pillar goes beyond the boundaries of common sense. It is the reason why depending on which behaviorist you ask you will get a different answer each time regarding the issue of dominance, physical force and leadership. Behaviorists are all over the map because they do not accept dogs as relational beings with needs that are separate and apart from this ideology. The interpretative script this ideology follows gives physical response a unconditional green light while failing to consider that perhaps the external does not provide a clear relational image. This behaviorist corner stone continues to be a stumbling block from those who are indoctrinated to these views. The ability for this group to see anything beyond this framework becomes nearly impossible and is the reason why dogs continue to take the hit. While this may seem like insanity to those who are wise to what is really happening it makes complete sense to those who are sold out to this belief system. The central tenant of learning theory that if you reward a dog for a desired behavior the behavior will happen again needs to be put into proper relational context to understand why this roadmap falls apart for some and not others. The question those who invest in this theory need to ask is what role does relational influence play within this learning based script or vis versa ? What I clearly show within the relational model and framework is that if the owner has not established influence at the relational level than their is no glue to hold this theory together as it relates to having meaningful influence over the dog's decision making process. The owner will continue to be objectified and response will be inconsistent. Within controlled environments you will have the appearance of solid response and trainers who promote learning ideology will not be able to qualify the type of influence happening at the relational level or the motives underpinning physical response . The concept of removing the motivating agent (treats) and assessing response is not reliable based on associative change (owner established as a supply source) unless response is qualified relationally. If relational change has taken hold than the behavior will hold also within all situations including other dogs, people etc. Within the Police K-9 training environment if the owner is seen as merely a resource than the level of focus on the target scent will be lacking. Simply continuing to re-inforce via learning theory and re-enforcement will only go so far. The glue which influences the path and direction of the dog's decision making process comes from coming into right relationship with the dog. Learning theory pivots on this truth. Models which are effective with bringing owners into proper relational alignment will therefore have success with using this ideology. How this ideology is promoted plays a critical role in the overall success or failure of dog and owner. When used as a anti-dominance ideology and
To better qualify the success of learning based theory one must assess the specific relational dynamics in play between dog and owner. Some of these include the personality type of the owner, the relational need of the dog as well as the ideology and methodology intersecting. When training is approached as an intervention than all the pieces fall into place. If you look at the relational model and how I am approaching training I am making sure relational change is happening first prior to using what I define as using relational markers to direct the dog's decision making process. The majority of training systems have reversed this process. When learning falls apart they are left scratching their heads and wondering what went wrong. The focus needs to be on getting the relationship right before moving to the next step. By Dale McCluskey
www.k9pack.com One only needs to break down the motives of a narcissistic person to see why learning based ideology falls apart for many. The core issue with the narcissist is that they lack empathy. They objectify and see others as a supply source and extension of themselves. People are card board cut outs. Responsibility is something to be avoided at all costs for the narcissist and they will make people feel like a crazy person when confronted. The bottom line is that they care for no one except themselves. Those who mirror their emotions through the dog and human relationship are setting up the same scenario when it comes to being deceived. The relational dynamics in play create the same type of objectification and motives underpinning how the dog responds within various interactions. From first appearances one can be deceived into making certain assumptions which are not always true. Those who promote the idea that dogs can learn their way out of behavior issues are disconnected from the relational reality of what is really influencing the dog's decision making process. Just like what motivates response in the human world two entirely different things can be happening. The relational context of physical response must be qualified to assess if meaningful change is actually happening. The possessive connection happening between dog and owner allows this deception to continue based on reverse fulfillment. This system approaches training as an intervention because for the majority of dogs and owners that is what it represents. Failure to recognize dogs as the relational beings they really are puts the owner at risk of failure based on a misplaced focus and lack of discernment as to what is really happening beyond the surface. |