Alpharoll by mistake?

[Cassidy's Mom]

Great article: Let's Just Be Humans Training Dogs | Dog Star Daily

As intriguing as it may be to observe and debate the development of social behavior of dogs (a subject that formed the focus of my research for nearly a decade), dog social structure and behavior actually have very little, if anything, to do with training! Social behavior and dog training are two entirely separate and distinct disciplines and any notions of wolf, or dog, hierarchical social structure, whether hypothetical or real, are simply irrelevant to the training of dogs. Whether we consider a dog to be a subservient, obsequious wimp, or an ultra-mega, alpha-dominant, human-dissing dog that is plotting to take over, first the family and then, the world … we still have to train the little doggie to like people and to respond reliably to basic manners.

If you don’t know how to train the dog, it’s OK. No biggie. Come and learn how. But please don’t just assume that it’s all the dog’s fault. Don’t reflexively blame your dog. Don’t call your dog names. Don’t assume that your dog is wolfy, or contemplating world domination. And above all, don’t make alpha-dominant excuses to make your dog’s life a misery by psychologically or physically bullying him/her under the guise of dog training. Instead, as a human being with a supposedly superior-functioning brain, give your dog the education that he/she deserves. As humans, we don’t walk on our knuckles when teaching children to read.

[Cassidy's Mom]

And another: WHY CAN'T DOGS BE DOGS AND PEOPLE BE PEOPLE? | Dog Star Daily

Like wolves, domestic dogs are social animals (and hence should not be socially isolated) and they have a hierarchical social system. However, the hierarchy is neither created by, nor necessarily maintained by physical domination, nor is it strictly linear. If anything, the hierarchy is created and enforced by psychological control during development, and the peace of the pack is maintained by the active appeasement rituals of lower-ranking individuals. In fact, the famous Cambridge and Berkeley zoologist, Dr. Thelma Rowell has suggested that the status quo of social groups is better termed a subordinance hierarchy — a much more precise and descriptive term.

Yes, most groups of male dogs generally have a surprisingly stable linear hierarchy, but females tend to show significant day-to-day variation and male-female interactions can be extremely unpredictable, with rank-reversals being the norm rather than the exception. Indeed, bitches have virtually rewritten canine hierarchical law with the First Bitch Amendment that states, “I have it and you don't!” Moreover, individual members of a domestic dog pack have special friendships, alliances and bodyguards. And truly confident TopDogs are more than willing to share and even allow underdogs and buddies prime access to bones and favored sleeping places. To say one alpha male rules the roost is an oversimplification to the point of ridicule. In fact, in most domestic canine social groups it is not a single male, but rather a group of females that decide what's what.

[Good_Karma]

I think it's instinctive to try and understand why a dog behaves the way it does, and looking at wolf behavior or even wild dog behavior (thus subtracting human influences on said behavior) is not illogical. It may be wrong, but I can understand why people, in the effort to deepen their understanding of canines, would look to these sources.

I'm not convinced we can't use some bits of what we know of dog's social behavior to mold our own training tactics. I think learning a dog's body language is extremely important in this respect.

Certainly I agree that the whole dominant thing can be taken too far. Just like with kids, you don't want to be lord and master over them (can you say teenage rebellion complete with tattoos and piercings) but you do want to set up reasonable boundaries on what behavior is considered acceptable and what is not.

The second half of that post I agree entirely with.

[Cassidy's Mom]

One more: Misconceptions of the Mythical Alpha Dog | Dog Star Daily

[Cassidy's Mom]

Originally Posted by Good_Karma

...but you do want to set up reasonable boundaries on what behavior is considered acceptable and what is not.

Absolutely, and Dr. Ian Dunbar is a big fan of setting rules and training appropriate behaviors. He talks about that in the 3rd article I posted.

[Good_Karma]

It's funny, you never hear people talk about Ian Dunbar on this forum. His books were the first ones I read on positive reinforcement. He completely changed my outlook on training.

[Good_Karma]

Ha! The omega-rollover. Good article, Cassidy's Mom. Thanks for taking the time to post the link. I hope other people read it too.

[crisp]

Originally Posted by Good_Karma

It's funny, you never hear people talk about Ian Dunbar on this forum. His books were the first ones I read on positive reinforcement. He completely changed my outlook on training.

Very true. I also really liked Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson. Probably the one book I would recommend for any dog owner.

[codmaster]

Originally Posted by Good_Karma

It's funny, you never hear people talk about Ian Dunbar on this forum. His books were the first ones I read on positive reinforcement. He completely changed my outlook on training.

I just read a paper by Ian on dog behavior and where aggresission comes from and I must admit I was a little surprised by his comparison and his theories equating puppy development with Freud's theories!

Maybe it was an early paper but it seems a little far fetched to link Freud's theory for human development with that of dogs!

[Good_Karma]

Originally Posted by codmaster

I just read a paper by Ian on dog behavior and where aggresission comes from and I must admit I was a little surprised by his comparison and his theories equating puppy development with Freud's theories!

Maybe it was an early paper but it seems a little far fetched to link Freud's theory for human development with that of dogs!

Ha!!! It wasn't the Freud theory about women wanting man parts, was it? Don't see how that relates to dogs either.

Seriously though, that surprises me too since I thought that many of Freud's theories had been de-bunked. Maybe you're right and it was a much earlier published paper.