Dominance/Alpha theory debunked by university study - Page 2

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by yllek

I guess I'm just trying to make a case that we don't have to look at our dogs through the lens of dominance/alpha/pack theory, and perhaps if we didn't, we might understand them better.

Well, you could stop by lumping dominance in with pack theory, because dominance is a drop in the bucket of canine behavior and has no place in every-day training as far as I'm concerned. People should also concentrate on training dogs TO do specific tasks, instead of relying on corrections. However, you'll never convince me that referring to basic pack theory is useless as a tool in an arsenal of experience.

I think the single biggest disservice people to do dogs and training, and you've been guilty of it more than anyone on this thread, is constantly coming back to dominance. Dominance as a diagnosis, trait, vice, theory or what have you has been, in my experience, a long outdated fall back for a lack of knowledge in canine behavior. And in the circle of trainers I know of, when someone pipes up with the notion that a dog is "dominant", we refer to a list of books as long as my arm to refresh their brain on the umpteen other things to look at first. Pack theory/alpha techniques do not equate to dominance theories, and yet you've used the terms interchangeably in this thread which is erroneous in and of itself.

You want to talk about "just training the dog". Ok. Let's talk about that for a second, and then I'll explain how that comes back to survival in the eyes of a dog.

Forget pack mentality, alpha methods, crate training, and all of that. Are you familiar with Pavlov's research of respondent and operant conditioning (which is pretty much the invention of the wheel in terms of clicker training)? How he used the metronome as an association to food proving that using a neutral stimulus and a natural reflex (or unconditioned response) can be used to teach via association?

With this method and little more than a scrap of food and the snap of your fingers you can basically teach almost anything. No alpha theories, waiting at doors, crate training, nothing.

Well, this is based on the idea that there are two things a dog will respond to unconditionally (the "unconditional response") - pain, and food. Obviously using pain is not a good thing, so we'll focus on food.

Using the natural response to food, the unconditioned response set up by nature (drooling when offered food) he was able to teach the dogs to associate the sound of a metronome to the impending treat of food.

Why do you suppose this is? Why does food have such a powerful response? Survival, perhaps? Look at the place food has within a pack structure and how the use of food as rewards is related and think about how far removed "just teaching the dog" is from a basic alpha theory. Not very. Of course, if you completely dismiss the idea that dogs live in packs and have structural hierarchy relationships this will be difficult.

Ah but, you don't use food as a reward! When the natural stimulus becomes unconditional (like the dogs drooling at the sound of the metronome when they previously had no reaction to it), it becomes easier to switch the focus to a new a unconditioned response, like say, a tennis ball instead of food. It's even been suggested this is easier in domesticated dogs, especially "old" breeds (in other words, not primitive breeds that haven't been cohabiting with humans for long). It's the emotion, the reflex, behind the actions that drive the dog. This is due the dog's innate desire to seek out food above all else (else being companionship and approval, all of which are observed in pack situations).

To a dog, no food means death. The single biggest threat to a dog in my house (I have three dogs) is feeding one of them last. This can also be demonstrated by taking a dog who is not food motivated and putting him in a group of other dogs and watching him eat chips of ice before they hit floor simply so the other dogs don't eat them first. It's not even food, but it's the survival mechanisms telling him he must get it first.

This is why food, food association, and other unconditional responses to items (when unrelated to food is stronger in some breeds more than others, like retrievers wanting to chase a dummy) is such a HUGE motivator for training.

So yeah, you can "just train the dog", but think of the action of teaching, especially through association, and how it correlates to dogs in packs. We know dogs hunt together. We know dogs have a pre-designated order in which pack members get fed. We know loner dogs have a much different diet from dogs in a pack. And lastly, we know loner dogs have a lower survival rate. There is motivation to remain where food is at an advantage, which is with other dogs. (Notice none of this relates to "dominating"?)

What does that mean for dogs not living where food is at an advantage? A lower survival rate. So when Pavlov took food and was able to get the dogs to associate the sound of a metronome with impending food treats, he tapped into their innate desire to hone in on the single biggest chance of survival, and voilà, cue attention! It's a trainers gold mine.. or at least until the advent of dominance theories, which thankfully in the timeline of dogs and humans living together, has been short lived. Or at least I hope so.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by yllek

Okay, by now, we had caught on. So she asked Ryan if he knew why he was being yelled at, and of course, he didn't. She had wanted him to stop sitting with his arms crossed. My trainer went on to say that for a dog, this type of "correction" is even more incomprehensible.

It sounds like you trainer teaches What Dog Owners Should NOT Do 101, which is great. But I have to say, not teaching a cessation command is like not teaching sit, in my books.

"No" need not be a correction, but a command, and a useful one at that. Teaching dogs TO do things instead of correcting them when they don't do them is obviously preferable, and I find it a tad bit of an over exaggeration that she used the use of the word "no" as a way to demonstrate why not to fly at your dog like a raving banshee for no reason.

"No" in my house simply means "halt what you're doing and focus on me". It's what's known as an interim command, or a sequential command, because at the time it's given it's incomplete. It stops a behavior before a new one is given. You'll often see them used in agility and field trials to guide a dog.

Instead of saying "GO RIGHT GO LEFT PAUSE TURN AROUND STOP GO FORWARD GO LEFT", it's the equivalent of saying "go right, stop, go left, stop, turn around, stop, go forward, stop, go left". At the time the cessation command is given the sequence is being broken up into easy to comprehend segments making it harder for the dog to fail. My motto has ALWAYS been, if you want a dog to succeed, set them up to succeed! It's really very simple.

In terms of pet dogs, the word "no", or whatever word you choose (mine is actually "halt") can stop a dog from running into a road after a loose ball, from eating dangerous food scraps on the ground, etc.

For example, if a ball runs out into the road and you yell "NO", and expect the dog to stop in its tracks and turn around you'll be disappointed. It's sort of like saying "NO DON'T RUN OUT INTO THE ROAD YOU'LL GET HIT BY A CAR", which is sort of the hard to understand analogy that your trainer used and why the guy didn't know why he was getting yelled at. If used as part of a sequence it's to get your dogs attention before using the next command in the sequence, which in the scenario of the ball going into the street, would be "come". So for my dogs, if a ball ran out into the road I would yell "HALT", and the second she stopped and looked at me I'd give the next command, which would be "COME". No all by itself is confusing, yes, but not a correction.

[North_Of_60]

Totally off topic, but a very dear friend of mine and I used to kid around when we were younger by spelling our names backwards and using it to confuse people. When I ever I see your name I think of her. Good times. :

[yllek]

North of 60, I am really enjoying this discussion. And, truly, I think we are both far more in agreement than not. I wanted to share the article here and discuss it with MDC mamas because I think that some of the most brilliant women hang out here. This has been fun.

Well, you could stop by lumping dominance in with pack theory, because dominance is a drop in the bucket of canine behavior and has no place in every-day training as far as I'm concerned. People should also concentrate on training dogs TO do specific tasks, instead of relying on corrections. However, you'll never convince me that referring to basic pack theory is useless as a tool in an arsenal of experience.

In this thread, I've been lumping dominance with the terms "alpha" and "pack" because that's how I've always encountered those terms. In the doggy lists and circles I hang out in, they are used pretty interchangeably. Folks tend to say that a particular dog behavior shows that the dog is trying to be dominant or alpha or the pack leader. The assumption is focused on the dog's motivation. I hope I've been clear that I really don't buy into any of these concepts; or at least, they haven't been all that useful to me while training my dogs. It sounds like you have your own definitions for alpha that I guess I'm not familiar with. I've been saying, "just train the dog" to mean that the fundamental assumption behind a dog's (mis)behavior can be that the dog isn't trained to do better.

I am passably familiar with Pavlov and his work, although it's been a long time since my Intro to Psych courses. More practically, I've used his principles of classical conditioning and counter-conditioning while trying to help desensitize my previous dog to her many, many triggers.

And I do use food as my primary reinforcer while training my dogs. I've been clicker training my dogs for years: first, my highly reactive rescued American Eskimo (now gone ) and now my 16-week-old, eager-to-please, totally mellow mini Aussie. Most of the sources I've read on positive reinforcement dog training have totally de-emphasized the "dogs as pack animals" theory, and I've read books on canine behavior and dog training at least as long as my arm's length. Those sources include Donaldson, Dunbar, McConnell, Pryor, Rugaas and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head without looking at my library (just so you understand my frame of reference). I like Dunbar's quote that most dogs don't form packs, but they can make awesome pack animals. Dogs live in packs within our households because we make 'em. Recent research on feral dogs demonstrate pretty clearly that they mostly don't form packs on their own. Also, they don't really hunt much either. They are mostly scavengers.

As for the No thing - we were covering the cues Leave It, Off, and Wait. All slightly different behaviors with specific criteria. My trainer was teaching us about using these cues for certain situations rather than the generic No.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by yllek

In the doggy lists and circles I hang out in, they are used pretty interchangeably. Folks tend to say that a particular dog behavior shows that the dog is trying to be dominant or alpha or the pack leader. The assumption is focused on the dog's motivation. I hope I've been clear that I really don't buy into any of these concepts; or at least, they haven't been all that useful to me while training my dogs. It sounds like you have your own definitions for alpha that I guess I'm not familiar with. I've been saying, "just train the dog" to mean that the fundamental assumption behind a dog's (mis)behavior can be that the dog isn't trained to do better.

I'm going to assume there is a regional aspect to this, and thankfully, in my neck of the woods, the trend towards assuming that any dog who misbehaves or is not trained well is "dominant" is starting to change. That's not to say it's never an issue, but by and large, it's not.

And over the years here on on the MDC pets forum you can search the posts of people questioning whether their dog is dominant, and the most common response to that is "well it's hard to tell over the internet, but chances are that your dog is NOT dominant, here are some books to read....".

[3boobykins]

I didn't read the article, but this is interesting and eye-opening. We had a dog who just didn't work out for us for various reasons and was returned to his breeder last summer. We had a trainer when we got him as a puppy, someone recommended to us by word of mouth. This trainer really seemed to be very invested in the whole dominance theory thing. She trained without food rewards--just praise-she was absolutely against food rewards. She also instructed us to do dominance rolls from the day our puppy came home, and when his behavior was dominant. She very much believed in corrections, which were not always very gentle. When she met our puppy (she worked with us before he even came home), she "diagnosed" him as dominant and somewhat aggressive almost immediately. He WAS a difficult dog, no question, but I don't think he was naturally aggressive, just very mouthy. He ended up biting someone, but it was definitely in reaction to a combination of fear and physical pain. He was a Gordon Setter, a large sporting breed, who, in hindsight, should have been a working dog or a one-person dog, and didn't belong in a family with young children.

I think working with Aengus in a different way, not focused on the dominance/submission model, would have helped him a lot, although I still believe we weren't a good match for one another. It's too bad that an outdated model is still being used, sometimes to the detriment of dogs and families. I believe that the methods taught by our trainer did more harm than good in the end.

All that said, I really enjoy our cat. The relationship is clear. We are here to wait on him hand and foot.

[Sailor]

I used reward based training in the beginning too. Or food based. Treat based - whatever the name. After I got the basics down, though, I stopped using the treat based system. I think that was about ... 3 or 4 months of treat training (Roark is 3 this summer).

We did Schutzhund, and the treat based system was too much of a distraction. I had to get rid of it. It was a third party, so to speak, between me and the dog. He didn't look at me, into my eyes when I said something. He looked to where the treats were. Which is why you will see a lot of trainers with treats in their mouths, to get the dog to look up at them. But, still, they're looking at the treat, rather than at the owner.

My goal, in training, was always to get the dog to look at ME. Look at me as his source for everything - including all commands. So, if I said a command, I expected immediate obedience. This is VERY important when training Schutzhund, as you don't want to train a dog to go after someone, but not stop when you say the command word.

I used a combination of corrections, NILIF, and verbal praise. It was hardcore, as I did not touch the dog in the form of petting unless he had "earned" it. Now - I give him love anywhere, any time. But, during the first two years - I couldn't, not if I wanted precision in training.

While I don't dispute the new research ... I'm thinking maybe it's 2 different things when you're training a dog for a pet/companion than when you're training a working dog.

The treat system just doesn't have a high success rate in Schutzhund - at least, not in my experience. I mean, imagine me trying to make my dog bite down on the decoy in order to get a doggy treat from me. It's dangerous. He has to bite down, and let go, not in anticipation of a treat, not because of that reflex, but because his first response is to always obey me. Roark is trained to bring down a full grown man. He's trained to open his jaws over a person's throat, and hold them there without breaking through skin until I give him the command to back away (or chomp). In the bloodlust of prey drive and battle, he MUST have enough self control and awareness to listen to me. Otherwise, things could become very dangerous. My control can't rely on the treats I give him or the reflex behind the treats. It has to come from the idea that I am his god - so to speak.

Now, we don't have to call me alpha if that definition doesn't apply. We can call me ... owner of a working dog.

I do think the reward based method is GREAT for companion dogs. This is what I use to train the rescue dogs in where I volunteer. But, I would never use it when training a guard dog or a dog in Schutzund or even in SAR.

[3boobykins]

Sailor, that does make sense that you would phase out treats when training a working dog. Very interesting stuff!

[betsyj]

I do think the reward based method is GREAT for companion dogs

Such a great distinction to make. Most people simply want a dog who follows basic commands and NILIF and treat/reward based gentle training will work wonders for them (and the treat is used only at the beginning and you then use variable reinforcement to fade it). Most dog/human relationships fail because the human dropped the ball-not because the dog was "dominant."

This is my issue with trainers like Cesar. I think his show misinforms regular pet dog owners who only see the "easy" part of his program, never the intense follow through required. He essentially only shows the surface, you never see the nuances. I do like his stressing lots of exercise-I think most dogs in America today are totally under exercised mentally and physically.

Love him or hate him I can not deny that he is a gifted trainer. I just don't think he does dogs any favors by suggesting that all issues are pack problems because oftentimes people stop listening to the rest of the message once they hear they can blame the dog.

[Sailor]

Cesar bugs me too, lol. He uses one method and one theory to train all dogs. I'm not a fan of such a method as, in my training, I try to apply the right methods based on the dog's personality, fears, issues, etc. Like I said - I'm a huge HUGE fan of Suzanne Clothier. I highly recommend her book. Incidentally, she also breeds GSD's, but trains many other breeds. She used to have a farm ... cows/pigs, but I'm not sure if she's still running that as I remember they had a fire a few years ago that destroyed quite a lot. She's not into the pack mentality either.

Obviously, Cesar is a good trainer in that he can get results for himself. But, I often wonder what happens months or a year later to those dog owners he leaves with instructions.

And I do agree, the pack theory he constantly stresses can definitely cause the other messages to be lost.

I also agree that dogs don't get enough exercise. I meet a lot of owners who, when I ask them how much exercise their dog gets, they tell me "well, we let him out into the yard 3 times a day." I think a lot of owners don't realize that, unfortunately, a dog is not going to exercise himself. The owner has to get out there with a ball or frisbee. I can't even count the number of times all behavioral problems were solved when the dog got enough exercise. It's the magic solution, lol.

[oneKnight]

Dominance does not equal pack leadership.

I'm a fan of Suzanne Clothier - I wish all dog owners would read her free articles. She's NOT anti-pack leadership though. Her article called Leadership Basics is a good one. She teaches the dog and requires self control out of him. Her article It Takes a Pack to Raise a Puppy is also a good one. Some of the stuff I read in her articles, I find rather amusing to play out in real life. I remember in one of them, reading about how subtle you can signal your dog to "back off" of your sandwich. You can make a soft dog move backwards and lay down just by giving her the "evil eye" and it really is true.

I also like Ed Frawley and he uses both pack structure and clicker type training. He also has a video of trying to teach a human to do some random trick, using only treats/clicker, no words (since dog's dont know English) it's funny and he makes his point, much like yllek's trainer made a point about yelling at the dog(man) when he didn't know what he did wrong.

Being a good pack leader is like being your dog's god, and it's a lot of work. Mostly, it's about developing a relationship with the dog. You can use NILIF type stuff, but after a while it becomes pointless exercises unless you have the relationship to back it up. My dog is a coward, she isn't gonna take over my house, but my leadership status actually gives her confidence when we encounter something scary.

Have you ever heard of Parelli Natural Horsemanship? It clicks for me, and you can't be a bully to be an alpha of a horse. I read a similar book called Horse Follow Closely, it was about the relationship between an Indian war pony and his human - and it was very similar to Parelli's theory.


I'm not a fan of Cesar. I found his website to be sortof a mix of useful info and kinda dumb or pointless stuff. I was shocked that his stuff wasn't better, for all the fame and glory he's getting. He seems to have a "one size fits all" approach, do "x, y and z" for the perfect dog, instead of developing a relationship with the dog.