Athos at 3 years and 8 months - Page 6

First I want to state that many experienced people interactiing with dogs , comprehend the dog based on their level of knowledge and experience. They understand conceptually , beyond the verbiage/words .Having stated that .. if one just uses the terminology in and of itslef , that does not lend inexperienced or less experienced people to be at the same level .

I use these examples involving a friend of mne 20 years ago . The first example .. he asked me what drive that one puppy running around with another puppy was in. I answered , 'play dirve' . He astood there baffled. He was a Ring Sport quaified decoy at that time, Then I turned to him and said " you thought the right answer and what I was going to say was 'prey drive'. But in fact , they are both playing , aren't they ? Then they are in play drive !. "

Second example , you have a dog that bit a person who walked onto the owners property . One would say .. that dog is in defense drive. But did the dog bite because he was being proactive and thought it was in complete control , or did the dog bite because it was in fear and decided to stike first ? Same beahvior but from two differnt origins in the dog's head. In both cases to merely say a dog is in drive does not tell you what is going on EXACTLY .... For me , I get into the dog's head and I state exactly what the dog is thinking and feeling as I describe the exact behavior. I don't use a single cliche word . Even though I have been trained by the best in the world in different continents .. I know well the ideas and the use of terminolgy to adequately or inadequately express those ideas and reulting behavior... If we were watching protection work .. i know your understanding by what words you use . Plus I see the dog ellicit behaviors and from whence those beahviors originate from. .. .. But others less experienced get false notions . Once I read , 25 years ago Helmut Riaser's Der Schutzhund[ i tihnk that was the title , haven't picked that book up in 20years. ny way I believe he wrote , that defense originates in fear. I think he wrote that because 20 years ago I said that is not ' entirely* correct. Partial correct but not entirely. So do you know how many people equate defense withnthe dog being fearful ?? I had come across years ago that it was not funny anymore. This is a prome example why I do not use cliche words. I will say the dog is concrned , the dog is uncomfortable , the dog is anxious. The dog is afraid , the dog is blatantly paralyzed by fear - shutting down. I don't say " the dog is defense drive. It is so ver easy because people think they can read the dog... But what I have found that many people could not. However that is me .. to each their won.
Last story Apple : one time a level 3 Ring Sport decoy worked my friend's 12 week bulldog. So he walks onto the field and tried rag work . the puppy just stood there. After 10 minutes he said to my friend the dog doesn't have drive. My friend standing on the field called my name , he said will you try to work the dog . I said ok . the decoy threw the rag in my face.... so i go 10 feet from the pup , sat down and watched the pup. I played and wigled the rag myself and as I was doing that I looked into the dog eyes. He moved 2 inches forward. Again . I don't think.. what drive the dog is in , prey this or that. I looked at the fact the dog went forward. I brought the rag toward the dog and bingo . A 15 minute rag session.. I said to my friend a novice at that time ... take a lesson. Right away they pegged your dog. First they go to their drum beat not the dogs. What do you think a 12 week puppy is thinking when he sees a 200 lb guy dressed up as a the Michelin Man [ in bite suit] approaching ? If you were that puppy , how would you feel. I told my friend : I made myself safe, non threratening , and small then extended an invitation to the pupy to play. All that he had to do was see what the puppy was thinking and feeling.. a level 3 decoy instead of thinking : I will work this dog in prey.

Two examples of this . One time my frined the SV Judge was getting people for Sch trial . [ that previous day he judged Sch 3 trial as we were in Germany] So he worked a GS and the dog would not come off the bite. He asked me what I would do with this dog... the owner wanted to trial this dog in 3 weeks. I said to him , many people would go to e collar and I said " but that is not always best for problem solving' . Another tact would be to use two sleeves and get him of the bite by offering a sceond sleeve to bite and condition as best we can intothe dog by pairing the cue , out. The third aspect is to wait the dog out [ no pun intended ] because he can't stay on the bite .. then when he decides to .. give him another quick bite on the sleeve , and so forth.
And I offered a couple of more options. But this problem in reality will never go away .. because if you say the dog is in fight drive , staying on the sleeve.. you miss the whole big picture /point about this dog. No he was not solely in fight drive as an explanation of his behavior. This dog was genetically poorly bred. The refusal to come off the bite was genetic in origin. His not coming off the bite was a genetic** problem , not a bite problem and this is what I said to the Judge , who was in 100% agreement. The underlying bite behavior / or lack of another behavior,outing, had nothing to do with the drive in and of itself. Now Apple with respect , reading your posts .. you may knowledgable enough to have seen this to .. But I have seen decoys and helpers , so stuck in terminology and methodology they miss the boat .. That is code for they don'y know Shi'''''''t from shinola because they only know what fits into their cliche words.
Compare this to a time a person brought his dog to me whomwould not come offthebite so fast when told to do so. In this case the dog stood on the bite for a whole differnt reason.. I put aside talking to him prey and defense terminology becasue I aid this dog is not sure when he comes offthe bite. he cannot channel his behavior of biting into another beahvior. He said what do you mean ? I said this is like two others fighting , the younger one has tholder one in a head lock , .But the younger does not have the confidence , if he lets his brother out of the headlock. He think Oh Oh ... I am winning and safe for the moment. That is your dog . He is not so much blowing you off but he caught up in what he is feeling..Oh , Ohh. We can clean this up ... Apple , again , for whatever this isworth to you ... this is whay I don't with inepxeprienced people talk prey , defense etc etc.



Apple this is a given , proven fact : Dogs can " Inductively Reason",not Deductively reason , but Ineductively. [ There are two reasoning processes for those that don't know]. The average person on this forum I don't hold to knowing that . But those that think they are experienced , I do . And when I read that they don't ..well... makes me stop and think . Fo those reading the comment.. get what will or will not out nof it. Agree or disagree.. doesn't matter ...

I see the issue a little differently. I think people have a too limited understanding of drives, thresholds, drive interaction and other canine working traits, which limits their ability to get into a dog's head and come up with creative solutions. For example, you mentioned, Raiser said the underlying emotion for defense was fear. Winkler's translation is a little more accurate in that he says all defense is triggered by worry. In other words, there is an element of stress. He then goes on the say that their are different types of defense that are genetically hardwired. For example, the strongest type of defense, (triggered by worry, not fear) is a strong active defense where a dog with some maturity will instinctual and violently bite the source of the threat without training. Being able to recognize drive in that type of detail is very useful in assessing a dog and, IMO, has more to with understanding drives and their underlying emotions than what a dog is "thinking." And of course, training impacts everything.Thresholds are an element of drive that are important to understand as well. Your example of the dog biting someone coming onto one's property could involve a low threshold for defense, but it could also involve territorial aggression, natural suspicion/mistrust, or the in rare case, true social aggression. You can't assess a dog based on a single event. The thing that I think that makes training so interesting, is the creative process and the thinking of the trainer is more important than the thinking of the dog. Your example of the bulldog and making yourself smaller speaks to my point. The dog was likely having an emotional rather than cognitive experience. For example, the dog might have felt insecure. He certainly wasn't thinking, "This guy is to big for me to mess with." Re: outing, dogs might refuse to out because they are so prey driven and possessive and have had faulty foundation training, that they were over trained in grip work and possession and the out wasn't taught early enough. That has to dog with reading a dog's level of drive, not his thinking. Reading nerves is also a factor. Some dogs don't out because they have thin nerves and know if they out they will have to deal with the man again. Same behavior, but very different underlying feeling states in the dogs. Re: inductive reasoning, I could argue it is really no different than shaping behavior through operant learning. And some, dogs, just like people, are smarter than others. I don't think we are too far apart in our philosophies/approaches, I just have a pet peeve when people say they know what someone or an animal is thinking, be scientifically speaking, it is not possible.

You may talk to people with whatever words you want to, not my problem at all.

But in case you take the time to reread your last post, all your examples are about "drives" and "feelings" ( and some stupid helpers/trainers who have nothing to do with the discussion ).

I think it´s fine to tell people in "easy words" what´s going on in their dog, but it´s dangerous and wrong to talk about "self discipline", "self control", or "thinking" when you are talking about dogs.

Jon Doe already believes in Rintintin, Lassie, or Kommissar Rex ( the German version ). Those people believe their dogs are furry children, and those "furry children" tend to produce a lot of problems, or tend to become neurotic, just because the owners treat their pets like children, but not like dogs.

Dogs are no humans, they are DOGS, and their world is primary based on drives, instincts, temperament. ( Even our "human" life is still highly based on genetic drives - a "self controlled" human is a person able to act against its genetic drives and instincts, NOT because this human was told to do so, but because this human DECIDED BY HIMSELF TO DO SO ; " self discipline " = a human who is willing to stay focussed on something/somewhat he/she instinctively would avoid OUT OF FREE WILL, but not because of TRAINING - a lot of humans are NOT able to do so, but dogs are ? ).
When given the chance any untrained dog will always act out of drives, but never out of any higher related "thought progress" - otherwise the dogs would feed their human pets by now...

Why don´t you just tell people that all those genetic drives and instincts work together, sometimes work against each other, and tell them the final result you observed?

This would be honest, and I guess you are intelligent enough to explain it to the "human" handlers.

Just read your post, apple - I like it...

This thread is starting to remind of the ol' "Sportism" thread. That was also a discussion of an individual's preference for insisting on defining their own terms.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -Wm. Shakespeare

However dogs think about the world, and I think researchers are just starting to understand how they think, I think it is very different than how we think about the world. So I think applying Maslow's theories or other theories based on human motivation are very limited.

I had the same dejavu, Bee.

For me giving the same thing a new name makes it smell like a marketing tool, but that's just me...

The smell may be the same, Bee, but the outcome?

The outcome? Well the thing is, it all depends if one wants to be understood by others. If one can only define one's success in a singular (mysterious) way, it gives one a few options concerning the outcome.

1.) Only they are intuned to the right definition and therefore are the possessor of the answer to the outcome.

2.) Others must be convinced that what they previously knew is not valid. This only happens if the explanation is deemed satisfactory and superior to obtaining the same outcome.

---------

On another note, Maslov’s hierarchy of needs was created in 1943. Shouldn’t that too be considered outdated at least as much as the discussion of leaking and capping drives is being maligned?

Now don’t get me wrong if I come across contrary and I am not won over with explanations regarding terms. I have no doubt that Centurion is very successful with training his dogs in his intuitive manner. He must have plenty of talent in that way to operate and be in demand within the higher circles of dogdom’s elite trainers.