The Dominance Theory ..... Is it all wrong?

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by ALPHAPUP on 30 September 2010 - 21:09

Mainlymax .. i liked your post !!.. many people that i train with and some that i teach to train often get an awakening when i tell them : training is ZEN .. i tell them [ so their minds don't get imprinted] " there are no techniques.. there is 'no way' to train .. the first order of business is to understand the dog by becoming the essence of each individual dog... and .. if you cannot do that .. you cannot better yourself or bring out the utmost best of a dog . but of course.. i will naturally lose some readers here with this thinking .. at least i know there is one other that gets the concept . AP

by MAINLYMAX on 30 September 2010 - 21:09

Alpha,
Thank you....alot of people think the Germans are all regimental.
Not true,...There have been great Philosophers out of Germany. And when
Ivan Balabanov started doing seminars there he found a great many of them
very Philosophical. I would say Europeans in general love to expound on the
universe more than the Chinese.

But not everyone is a IP Man or Ivan, with his without conflict philosophy.
But not every one can win either!!

Thats not Neitzche,.....thats Moon's in the off broadway Play Deadwood!!
He got a very good write up in the New York Times!!

by Prager on 01 October 2010 - 01:10

OK I got over my nausea.
I disagree with the guy all the way to the point where he is giving examples of how to train the dog where he describes dominant training where he contradicts him self in one video.
1. wolf vs dog. Wolf and dog are of the same species. Chimps and humans are not. Almost 100% of what dog does is based on wolfs behavior. The only thing I can think of which is not related to wolf is loss of timidity ( Which we still see in some dogs ). Dog lost some of the wolfs behavior or it got milder but it is not erased.
Fact: Dog is a pack animal and dog has to have a leader or he will turn into one. Leadership is not necessarily established through physical dominancy but sometimes must be enforced with it. Some dogs are more pushy for dominancy and leadership and some are not as pushy. Dog does see us as a part of the pack. If we do not assume proper leadership position both will assume leader position because their genetic makeup will not allow them not to. That leads to many problems from which the aggression is the most menacing. Aggression as of being overly protective of or overly aggressive to their owners. For example pulling on leash is indeed caused by the excitement but proceeding with it is caused by disregard to handler's leadership position.
Jumping on the owner is totally misunderstood here since jumping is a sign of submission and not of dominance as our lecturer falsely assumes . Dog jumping on us comes form submissive wolf upon encounter licking face of dominant wolf. If he would not do it he would get his butt kicked or get killed. That is thus quickly and very strongly established in wolfs genetic make up and subsequently carried to dogs genetic makeup. In order for our submissive dog to lick our face he must jump. We may be dominant and if our dog is not trained then he jumps on us . I call it counter cultural behavior. For dog in it's "culture" it is polite and necessary to lick dominant member's face but it is not polite in human culture. There are other examples of that like sideways sitting of the dog in from of us on come command.
2. Then our lecturer talks about setting limits and so on. Well that is actually establishing of leadership/dominant position. When you train the dog to come, not to pull and so on he will do it reliably around distractions in any situation only if he respects us as a leader. Other wise our positive motivation only will invariably succumb in view of a running cat in front of the nose of the dog and so on.
3. Speaking of damage. Positive reinforcement only type training promoted by this type of a training is a source of 99% of all behavioral none health related problems. That is based my 44 years experience as a trainer and thorough observation of dogs wolfs and study of such subjects.

Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com

by Two Moons on 01 October 2010 - 03:10

There is no spoon.

by ALPHAPUP on 01 October 2010 - 12:10

prager .. nice post .... LITTLE SIDELINED HERE BUT .. chimps / humans .. are much more alike than we have ever thought .. share i think 98% the same DNA .. and they have very close the same cognitive skills we have .. such as cognitive recombination , meaning they can take two different concepts and put them together to develop another idea !! other mammals also in training is getting way overdone.. ] in scientific terms and behavioral fundamentals there is a negative negative , a negative positive , a positive positive , and a positive negative aspect to behavior . put simply we need to teach / communicate in a clear, kind , loving , clear ,manner in the other species way of communicating . and you ARE correct : we need to be ready to DISCIPLINE , which in and of itself is not negative.[ there can be positive negatives].. so it is written " spare the rod , spoil the child" .. meaning not imply to physically harm but rather to be ready to be in a position to enforce lovingly ..i think sometimes dogs [ animals] are smarter than we are ..we spend more time trying to figure them out and even before we start they have us pegged / figured out . we know .. 99% of the time we humans create the problems with our animals !! and that is because we don't take a leadership role .. that does not entirely mean dominance .. leadership is not the same concept as dominance. [ IMO being dominating has to much baggage such as , current day bullying , threatening in order to impose will , psychologically & verbally being abusive to control , intimidate , manipulate - and this is many folks interpretation of being dominant in dog training.] . Dominion .. when you teach a dog not to take food off your floor, to release from a bite .. it should be from the fact that you have communicated / taught the dog 'that it is in it's best interest to o/ not to do so . to have self control and to have taught how to use it's instincts NOT because you are master and dominant and you will tear it's head off it doesn't comply to your will. teach correctly first and discipline if need to

by Sunsilver on 01 October 2010 - 13:10

One reason Caesar is so successful as a trainer is he constantly watches dog behaviour and body language. Okay, sometimes he sucks in the way he interprets it, like saying that dog was sexually excited, but MOST of the time, he's bang on.

Anyone who has ever watched a new dog being introduced to a group of dogs will see them immediately start to work out the pecking order. A dog standing stiffly, or puttting its head over another's back is communicating that he/she is dominant. If two dogs are doing this to each other on meeting, you'd better watch out: a fight is likely brewing, unless one dog submits.

Humans do carry the dominance theory to ridiculous extremes, though (having the kid hump the dog, putting saliva in its food...RIDICULOUS!) But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater....

I do believe man has manipulated canine behaviour to the point where they CANNOT be accurately compared to wolves. There are important differences, and we need to be aware of that. Yes, Moons, they ARE the same species. So are wild reindeer and domestic reindeer. But let a wild reindeer mate with a domestic one, and you've got BIG trouble! The wild genes will produce a deer that is very skittish and difficult to manage. Look at the huge changes in appeareance we've brought about with selective breeding. Don't try to tell me behaviour hasn't changed, too!

by jc.carroll on 01 October 2010 - 15:10

Juvenilization / neoteny is one of the largest difference between wolves and dogs.

The domestication process unintentionally results in the retention of juvenile characteristics long past when a wild animal would carry them. The term for this change is called pedomorphisis, and one of the best examples of this is the russian fox farm breeding program, which through the process of selecting fur foxes that were easy to manage, noticed odd changes that coincided with a tractable temperament: curly tails, floppy ears, spotted coats, kit-like behavior... other traits like earlier sexual maturity and more frequent reproductive cycles.

Dogs and wolves may be taxonomically the same species on the basis that they can interbreed and produce viable offspring, I can't argue that one. Dogs can also interbreed and produce viable offspring with coyotes, jackals, and dingos. One might argue, based on that definition of "species" that dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals are all the same species because they can all interbreed and produce offspring capable of reproducing.

Sorry for the tangent. It's just something that I mull over. Didn't mean to hijack into semantics over the term "species."

Info on the Russian foxes [.pdf article]

by ALPHAPUP on 01 October 2010 - 15:10

sunsilver your point is well taken and has a degree of validity .. BUT dogs can be accurately compared to wolves with having wisdom to the similarities as well as the differences. did you ever see a group of feral dogs ?? they don't exactly look like a little fifi house dog , do they ? and same with other domesticated animals .. e.g the pig... domesticated but yet let one back into the wild and it is one of the animals that will fastest revert to a wild animal , a boar- physically and behaviorally you could hardly tell the difference !! yes - we genetically manipulated but not entirely eliminated the wolf behavior. So ?? you can take the dog out of the wolf but you can't take the wolf [ completely] out of the dog !! [ there arises the expression you can take the man out of the country but not the country out of the man !]

by Prager on 01 October 2010 - 15:10

Sunsilver most behavior has not changed. Just its intensity and frequency. Off course such behaviors are based and always stemming from wolf. As I have said except loss of shyness towards humans I can not think of behavior which we can observe in dog and not observe in wolf (to probably more pronounced degree).

Alphapup
Here are the questions which you need to ask:

1.DNA of chimps and humans are 98.5 identical. Does it mean that we are 98.5% Chimps and vice versa?
2.DNA of dolphins and humans are 92% identical does it mean that we are 92% dolphins?
3.DNA of any animal is at least 20% similar to ours does it mens that we are 20% newts?

I have read great article on similarity of DNA of human and Chimps;
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

However the point is obviously not how much of DNA we have in-common with chimps and dogs with wolfs.
But similarity of instincts which are fixed action patterns and drives which are build in urges which help us and animals to seek basic necessities for survival. That is like food and sex.
Instinct are fixed brain based behaviors and they are always the SAME within every SPECIES. Yes they may vary in intensity and frequency between the individual of the species. Please when you red this you must keep in mind that wolf and dog are of the same species.

The statements above are not some kind of a concoction which I have made, but basic scientific facts. I am mentioning scientific facts because the + only training crowd ( I am referring to wide eyed video lecturer here) just about always invokes "modern scientific facts" . Which chops my hide since most of what they are saying is convoluted gobbledygook( - incomprehensible or pompous jargon of specialists) with which they are trying to fool people into believing that their PC positive only training methods are the only ones to be used and rest of the dog training crowd are just bunch of knuckled dragging troglodytes.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com

by MAINLYMAX on 01 October 2010 - 16:10

Sorry Moon's,

Geek philosophers are short fat bald guy's...Nietzsche
was much better looking.

While I can't walk people through a step by step process
of training....which is much needed ( large DVD series).
I can support a fundamental principle, when you reach a level
of cooperation with your dog through an intrinsic bond. ( covalent)
That it may be impossible to impart to anyone who has not
experienced in some part of their life.
This carries over to training a well bred dog. They are sensitive
to all your leads and respond accordingly. But first and for most
there must be a trusting bond with you as the leader. With a clear
and determined path......A covalent bond rather than Ionic..
There is no spoon!!..... Don't think feel!!!
If things are not moving along, you need to stand back stop thinking,
give tit a rest and feel.... which is your .your greater mind.

Look at Dominance as Ionic rather than covalent. The two fields exists in
nature to resolve problems of the rhythm and flow. One proceeds
the other.

Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top

The Dominance Theory ..... Is it all wrong? - Page 4

Pedigree Database