Dominance Theory

DBB

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I dont think there is any one correct system, that would be arrogant, but as TooManyDogs said, an approach should be tailored to an individual dog, IMO what ever works for your dog is the best system.

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I'm very comfortable with my make it up as you go along system, a fair bit of it is thinking outside the box and a lot of it is directly transferred from experience schooling horses. The biggest advantage is of course that it leaves you open to consider other people's opinions and my philosophy in life in general is that if you are not willing to consider that every other view on any given subject matter may have some merit then your own opinion loses all credibility and you end up looking like an arrogant know it all.

I would like to clarify, once again, because it seems my point is being missed, again. Positive training can be and is a mish-mash of different ideas. There's nothing wrong with that. It applies across species: humans, goldfish, cats, horses (of which I too have many years experience: funny though, that horse training involves a huge degree of negative reinforcement and positive punishment.. one of the reasons I got out of it in fact. The horse behaviour movement has a long way to go to catch up with dog behaviour)
It seems that people are having difficulty in accepting that positive training is not a "method".. it's an approach, or perhaps it's better described as being a frame of mind. There is always resistance to the idea of dropping any form of punitive training, because it seems to be very ingrained in people.
Positive training is a plethora of different ideas. Nobody holds a monopoly on it. Put two good trainers into a room with some dogs, I can guarantee you they'd both teach the dogs the same skills, but they wouldn't use the same techniques to do it. Everyone has their own style: it doesn't matter. As long as it doesn't cause harm.
Do whatever works, as long as it peacefully reinforces the behaviour you want, but cannot harm the dog in any way if you have to punish.

Of course, there are many owners who are brilliant at training their dogs positively, there are owners out there with great natural instinct for training. But most owners want to train their dog positively, but may not fully understand how to do this. The fact that a qualified trainer or behaviourist has the skills and experience to help teach such owners how to be creative about their training, as long as they take a non-harmful approach, is somethig that should surely be applauded? Or do we sit back and let Barbara Woodhouse and Cesar Milan teach owners?

As long as the dog is taught something and not harmed in the process, it's positive training. I cannot, for the life of me, see why anyone could have a problem with it. It's a win-win situation. Or am I being arrogant in thinking that?:rolleyes:

Why would anyone who owns and loves their pets opt to potentially harm their pet, when there is always an option to do no harm but still get the same result? I'm looking forward to someone giving me a credible answer here, because I have yet to hear one.

Scientific research is all very well but unless you are actually the person who conducted it, you are still just rhyming off something you have read/been taught/ tried out and it works for you. Free thinking is the greatest human trait, and we should all use it as much as possible instead of being sheep and following the flock.

This is very distorted logic. By your logic, a GP, a vet, a psychologist, a mechanic, an engineer, a hairdresser, a sculptor, a teacher, a child-minder etc etc... you're saying none of them should be able to practice in any of their fields! I conclude this because I don't know if any human exists who has actually carried out every bit of research in the field in which they work! What utter nonsense.
Because it's a field I'm familiar with, I'll stick with science. All medical, veterinary, paramedical and paraveterinary (including behavioural) practitioners base almost all of their work on the findings of other experts in the field.
A brain surgeon is not the expert he is due to his work being based on all of his own research, he's an expert because he's widely read, widely studied, widely researched, and vastly experienced. But he's not basing his work solely on his own research, if he was, I doubt very much if many of his patients would survive.
So, I'm afraid, to a greater extent brain surgeons are just rhyming off what they have read/been taught/tried out. They do it brilliantly. And so do many other professionals in a vast number of different fields, including animal behaviour.
I'm simply flabbergasted by this logic, or lack thereof.

Cherry Blossom

DBB wrote: »

This is very distorted logic. By your logic, a GP, a vet, a psychologist, a mechanic, an engineer, a hairdresser, a sculptor, a teacher, a child-minder etc etc... you're saying none of them should be able to practice in any of their fields! I conclude this because I don't know if any human exists who has actually carried out every bit of research in the field in which they work! What utter nonsense.

I'm not going to get into a mud slinging match over the sheer amount of drivel you've read into my post that isn't there, but more the fool you, if you think a horse can't be trained without negative reinforcement and positive punishment. I'm going to reply to the part of your post that I've quoted though.

What I'm talking about is using common sense and your own judgement. I know a 10 year old who is on a kidney transplant waiting list because his mother ignored her own instincts and what she found in her own research and trusted a GP on his diagnosis (actually lack of), if he had taken her seriously when she first arrived in his office and told him what she suspected the problem to be, a course of steroids would have been the end of it. Plenty of vets have given me personally absolutely horrific advice in my life time. Most teachers these days seem to struggle to spell their own name, I've never met a person in my life who can honestly say they left a hairdressers happy every single time they have ever been to one, don't even get me started on child minders, and I have a brother who is a mechanic and I wouldn't trust him fix his own breakfast never mind my car.

Personally I think it very foolish that a person should take any one persons statement of fact as the 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' but when it comes to both dogs and horses for some reason every single person making a living out of it will make this declaration they only correct way is their way, regardless of what methods they use. I have no idea why these 'industries' attract so many narcissistic personalities but it's the reason why there is never any compromise, never any give and take and results in people being constantly at loggerheads. No better way to 'kill' progression in any subject matter if you ask me.

I've said anything I feel worth saying on the matter at this stage so I'm done expressing my opinion on it now (and I'm perfectly entitled to have an opinion on it, as is the rest of the world by the way).

DBB

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a mud slinging match over the sheer amount of drivel you've read into my post that isn't there,

Heh heh. I've read drivel into your post? heh heh :rolleyes:
Pot. Kettle. Etc.
I'm not mudslinging, just stating fact.

but more the fool you, if you think a horse can't be trained without negative reinforcement and positive punishment.

Hold your horses there now. And you say I'm reading drivel into your posts?
I never said, please re-read my post, that horses can't be trained without negative reinforcement and positive punishment, and I'll not have you misquoting me. Horses are most commonly, and have traditionally, been trained using negative reinfocement and positive punishment. they have, and still do, endure shocking abuse as a result, and many people still can't see that. This is not the same thing as me saying that they can't be trained any other way. Sheesh.:rolleyes:
This forum is legendary for people taking tiny bits of posts, turning them around, kneading them, then coming up with replies that bear no resemblance to the point being made. Pity to see *some* mods at it more than most.

What I'm talking about is using common sense and your own judgement. I know a 10 year old who is on a kidney transplant waiting list because his mother ignored her own instincts and what she found in her own research and trusted a GP on his diagnosis (actually lack of), if he had taken her seriously when she first arrived in his office and told him what she suspected the problem to be, a course of steroids would have been the end of it. Plenty of vets have given me personally absolutely horrific advice in my life time. Most teachers these days seem to struggle to spell their own name, I've never met a person in my life who can honestly say they left a hairdressers happy every single time they have ever been to one, don't even get me started on child minders, and I have a brother who is a mechanic and I wouldn't trust him fix his own breakfast never mind my car.

Goodness, we're paranoid. :rolleyes:
And yet again, the old forum chestnut... quoting isolated and/or highly generalised and vague "exceptions" to try to discredit the general rule... calling scientific theories "so-called" scientific theories (ah yes, Einstein's "so-called" Theory of Relativity, Darwin's "so-called" Theory of Evolution... hilarious:D)
No point in entering into intelligent discussion with people like this.
PS If a vet gives " absolutely horrific advice", report them.

Personally I think it very foolish that a person should take any one persons statement of fact as the 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' but when it comes to both dogs and horses for some reason every single person making a living out of it will make this declaration they only correct way is their way, regardless of what methods they use. I have no idea why these 'industries' attract so many narcissistic personalities but it's the reason why there is never any compromise, never any give and take and results in people being constantly at loggerheads. No better way to 'kill' progression in any subject matter if you ask me.

Does that include being a mod?

I've said anything I feel worth saying on the matter at this stage so I'm done expressing my opinion on it now

Another chestnut. End the discussion. Or you could close the thread either? Or work towards banning the people who don't agree with your opinion (which they're perfectly entitled to, by the way) :rolleyes:
Everyone else here may not agree with each other, but the discussion usually remains civil and constructive. I think, were an average poster to state that another was posting "drivel", or insinuate that they were a "fool", it wouldn't be long until they got a "break from the forum".

(and I'm perfectly entitled to have an opinion on it, as is the rest of the world by the way).

You are, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but when it's got no basis in fact and contradicts everything the best research tell us, it just makes a person "lose all credibility" and "look arrogant", and should not go unchallenged by those who do actually know what they're talking about.

I've said all that's worth saying on this now... or maybe I haven't:p

aisher

Well it seems everyone has their own approach to how they train their dog. Personally despite what some have said in regards to the methods employed by Cesar Milan I still enjoy his programmes and his books and they have given me some ideas with regard to my own dog - I have also gone down the basic training route with the rewards and I found that both methods combined work for me and my dog. Others might not agree but each to their own - works for me.

star-pants

Mod warning - I think everyone needs to calm down a little - opinions are all valid, attack the post not the poster and please try to keep things on topic.
There is no need to respond to this post.

Whispered

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

for some reason every single person making a living out of it will make this declaration they only correct way is their way, regardless of what methods they use. I have no idea why these 'industries' attract so many narcissistic personalities but it's the reason why there is never any compromise, never any give and take and results in people being constantly at loggerheads.

Well this is not true anyway - how much experience with professional trainers do you have? The very best trainers in this country are the ones who are constantly updating their credentials, studying new methods, trying new things. These are the ones you will commonly see being recommended in this very forum.

As for insinuating it attracts narcissistic personalities and that there is never any compromise. How insulting. There was me thinking this forum had gone beyond the habit of making sweeping comments. (Actually I recall a poster being banned for making sweeping comments - go figure)

peasant

I use dominance over my dogs every single day.

(I'm the only one able to open and serve out their food and they do remember that ...ocasionally )

Wibbs

peasant wrote: »

I use dominance over my dogs every single day.

(I'm the only one able to open and serve out their food and they do remember that ...ocasionally )

And you reckon you're the dominant one? People make a distinction between dogs and cats and think the latter are in more control. Yet your dog licks our faces and we think "ahhh he/she's so cute" and then you feed them. The buggers are both the same, just dogs are better chancers. At least a moggie is more honest about it.

peasant

To expand a bit on the flippant remark above ...yes, that really makes me the dominant one. I control all the resources: first and foremost the food, but also things like open doors, flying balls, unhooked leads ...anything a dog could possibly want, I excert control over it. So yes, I am the dominant one.

But that doesn't automatically make me their leader. To be the leader, I must firstly retain control over all the resources and secondly hand them out appropriately and fairly.

In the first case that means that I control the dogs and not the other way round. I don't hand out food (or whatever) when they look at me nicely / annoy me into giving in ...I make them work for it or co-operate for it. A simple "sit" before you put down the bowl does the trick and only a calm and attentive dog gets let off the lead ...and so on.

On the other hand, I need to be predictable and fair. Food needs to arrive at the appointed time, the rules must be applied fairly and consistently at all times, I must be reliable and dependable.

Stick to that and you should have no major problems as the dogs will accept your authority.

Bullseye1

I'm amazed you have time to walk and feed them with the amount of time you've spent on that watch