Coronation Street and Alpha Dog - yes there is a connection

Mince Pie

Thats the Lurcher in the box??

My two terrors,.... erm I mean darlings.....

corsav6

Mince Pie wrote: »

Thats the Lurcher in the box??

Yep, we're sending him back
I'll get better pics of all 3 as soon as I can. We think the lurcher is a Collie mixed with some hound, maybe whippet.

Edit: your lurcher is far bigger than ours. How do you include the pic in the post instead of a link?

Mince Pie

corsav6 wrote: »

Yep, we're sending him back
I'll get better pics of all 3 as soon as I can. We think the lurcher is a Collie mixed with some hound, maybe whippet.

Edit: your lurcher is far bigger than ours. How do you include the pic in the post instead of a link?

The picture has to be public which it is on facebook then attach the jpeg without the spaces [ img ] insert jpeg [ / img ]

corsav6

Not on Facebook so I'll just link it. This is the best pic I could get at the moment, it raining so we had to go in the shed.

Mince Pie

Cuteness!!! Wanna give them all a cuddle.

ShaShaBear

And here is poor, simple Shadow, who wouldn't know "Alpha" if it hit him in the face. Did I mention he's simple







... He doesn't do much

Mince Pie

Aaaawwwwww, what a little dote.

corsav6

That's a lovely dog, real pretty face.
The terrier following the lurcher in the previous post is adorable, I have a soft spot for terriers though. I need to get better pics. Out of interest what ages are your dogs. Ours are, terrier 9, lurcher 4 we think and the big guy is 5, we think.

Mince Pie

My Lurcher is 5 or 6, I always forget, her birthday was in January. Terrier X is around 3.

DBB

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your right and you hit the nail on the head by saying Human world which is an alpha dog society.

Huh? The human world is an alpha dog society? You're going to have explain what you mean here, because you've lost me!

No matter what ever anybody says when it comes to training and Theory . There are lots of different methods out there but none of them are 100%

This attitude of sticking your fingers in your ears, and refusing to accept that the dominance hierarchy stuff has been debunked is pretty tiresome dre.
The learning theory stuff has been proven, by science, the same science that cures cancers, tells surgeons how to do complex operations, provides us with safe medicines, the same science that tells us that homeopathy is nonsense, and that voodoo doesn't work.
Now, if you think it would be appropriate to send your sick child, your dog, or yourself to a witch doctor, or an unqualified quack, go right ahead. But until you can give me some pretty damn good evidence to back up and support your decisions when it comes to such medical or behavioural care, then what you're saying here needs to be taken just as seriously as the unqualified, unlearned opinion of any other quack. Personally, I'll go with what the empirical, peer-reviewed, tried and tested evidence tells me and those that are responsible for my and mine's health. Perhaps it's not 100%, but by god I'd rather have my odds quantified empirically for me. Otherwise, it's guesswork.
Training-wise with your 100% comment, which would you rather? Would you prefer your dog behaved itself because it is afraid not to? Or would you prefer it behave well because it enjoys it? Use whatever methods you want, but if they involve having to use fear, anxiety, force or compulsion to teach the animal, then you're doing something wrong somewhere.

ShaShaBear

Shadow is 9, hell be 10 in November.

But I like to think he's gonna live for another nine years, I couldn't bear to lose him!

IvySlayer

Cesar Milan lol

I remember watching an episode where he was dealing with a labrador with severe food aggression, the family warned him not to put his hand into the dish, he did and Cesar got bitten badly on the hand

Cesar then announced he was going to make the dog submit which resulted in him staring at the dog for about 3 minutes then Cesar made up some bull**** about the dog submitting cos it's mouth moved, despite the fact the dog was standing over the bowl still defending his meal while Cesar walked off :rolleyes:

corsav6

IvySlayer wrote: »

Cesar Milan lol

I remember watching an episode where he was dealing with a labrador with severe food aggression, the family warned him not to put his hand into the dish, he did and Cesar got bitten badly on the hand

Cesar then announced he was going to make the dog submit which resulted in him staring at the dog for about 3 minutes then Cesar made up some bull**** about the dog submitting cos it's mouth moved, despite the fact the dog was standing over the bowl still defending his meal while Cesar walked off :rolleyes:

Have you ever seen an episode where he succeeded with a case? I understand some of his theories may have been disproven over the years but there are a lot of cases where he made a big difference. As long as he can incorporate the new methods with what he's already good at then I'm sure he will continue to improve some dogs lives.

DBB

DBB wrote: »

Huh? The human world is an alpha dog society? You're going to have explain what you mean here, because you've lost me!

This attitude of sticking your fingers in your ears, and refusing to accept that the dominance hierarchy stuff has been debunked is pretty tiresome dre.

I am neither for or against the "dominance theory" i dont know were you got it from. :cool: I am open for what is the best theory to use giving the circumstance, Time,money etc....

But like everything you cannot provide proof that the dominance theory doesnt work for dogs.

I could get get into the whole discussion on how the human world uses dominance by using the study of great apes in the wild, but that would be stupid now wouldnt it

Just had a quick google, a whole article on wolves using dominance

Whats that David ???
http://youtu.be/tNtFgdwTsbU?t=1m35s

Another quick google .........


http://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/319prolongedintensivedominance.pdf


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIRVpLaCDS0


Saying it doesnt happen is incorrect.

corsav6

There may not be a so called alpha male but their certainly is dominance amongst dogs. I'm also fairly sure without even reading the links posted above that there would be some dominant wolves among some packs. Do all these new studies been linked through various posts now mean we understand everything about dogs or wolves? I'm sure there will be more studies in the future that will disprove some of what we think is fact now.

ShaShaBear

But domestic dogs are not wolves. Doesn't matter that they are descended from them. We are descendants of apes but I suck at tree climbing and I don't enjoy eating nits out of children's hair.

corsav6

ShaShaBear wrote: »

But domestic dogs are not wolves. Doesn't matter that they are descended from them. We are descendants of apes but I suck at tree climbing and I don't enjoy eating nits out of children's hair.

Who is this aimed at?

ShaShaBear

ShaShaBear wrote: »

But domestic dogs are not wolves. Doesn't matter that they are descended from them. We are descendants of apes but I suck at tree climbing and I don't enjoy eating nits out of children's hair.

your right, at the end of the day its all theory. Positive re-reinforcement is probably the best but dont dismiss other types of training.

h2005

cocker5 wrote: »

I have to be honest and say Conornation street is complete drival and IMO the majority of people who watch that sh*te probably use the "alpha male theory" with their dogs they have locked in the garden 24/7.

Im sorry I just think CS is for narrow minded, uneducated idiots who are narrow minded in all areas of life and not just with regard to their animals...

But yeah i get your point, its further fuelling the stupidity of idiots who watch it.

Pretty narrow minded view to have.

fatmammycat

Deleted User wrote: »

your right, at the end of the day its all theory. Positive re-reinforcement is probably the best but dont dismiss other types of training.

What 'training' though? Even in the videos you posted you have the top breeding dog of the pack, asserting his might over what is most likely an offspring, who will at some point split from the pack and either form a new pack or roam until assimilated.
Domestic dogs don't behave like this, domestic dogs would most likely have had a serious fight in a battle for breeding rights. So what must we learn from this to help our domestic dogs in training? Note, the younger wolf in your clip rolls himself again and again and again as the more sexually mature dog stands over him. I've watched countless younger pups do exactly the same with older dogs, and including lip licking with pinned ears. What the likes of CM would have us do is ROLL our dogs for a multitude of reasons, with little to no understanding of why the dog has behaved why it has? Dog snaps at another dog, roll him. Dog snaps at owner, roll him.
It's nonsense and will end up with humans being bitten and dogs destroyed.
Sexual behaviour between complicated social wolf packs just does not translate to our pampered/neutered/well fed dogs. Even 'hard' dogs respond well to positive training: slapping, rolling, yanking, eye-balling, they might 'work' but you have to wonder why anyone would chose this method when positive reinforcement words so well and creates such a bond of trust.

DBB

Deleted User wrote: »

Another quick google .........


http://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/319prolongedintensivedominance.pdf


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIRVpLaCDS0


Saying it doesnt happen is incorrect.

Are you going to just quote isolated examples, even described within the written article as "unusual", to prove what you're saying? This video is the same incident that is described in the article you linked to above, yes? One example of something that doesn't actually prove the point you appear to be trying to make to me at all. Hmmmm.

What do you think I'm saying doesn't happen? Are you alleging that I have said that dominant behaviour doesn't exist? Read my posts very carefully. Never once have I said that.
Dominant (I think "domineering" is more accurate, but it's pedantics really), bullying behaviour exists, no doubt about that. It describes a relationship between two individuals, whatever the species. I've never said anything to the contrary.
What I have said, and I'm still waiting to see anything to contradict this, is that dominance hierarchies as a model for wolf society do not exist. And by extension, they do not exist for dogs either.

In the article and video you post, an "unusual" incidence of a domineering, bullying battle between what they think is a father and young adult son, is taking place. But to leap from this event to the assumption that it is proof for a dominance hierarchy? Really? Like I say, I'm still awaiting evidence, as are behavioural scientists, applied behaviourists, and interested owners across the world.

So, why do wolves, or dogs for that matter, exhibit dominant/domineering/bullying behaviour? Is it to enforce a dominance hierarchy? Is there any evidence to support this? Well, if such behaviour was to enforce a perceived social hierarchy, then a "rank reduction" program would stop a dog from carrying out "dominant" behaviours, wouldn't it?
Problem is, it doesn't. It works for some dogs, in ways that can be logically explained using basic learning theory rather than some social construct (see links below). It doesn't work at all for a large chunk of dogs. And for the remaining dogs, it devastates them, or changes their behaviour for the worse. If their behaviour was motivated by dominance, then removing that motivation should cure them... right? But it doesn't, for most dogs. In fact, when dogs do stuff that some would label "dominant", it is almost certain that the behaviour is actually motivated by a desire by the dog to control his own environment, to try to have a quiet life. Which is not at all the same thing as trying to enforce a dominance hierarchy (e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558787808001159, also http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/8800257 (the use of the category "dominance aggression" has since been abandoned by researchers and textbooks, indeed they now categorise "dominance aggression" as a form of "fear-related aggression", which speaks volumes).
Indeed, the broad failure of "rank reduction" or "pack leader" techniques is supporting evidence for the non-existence of dominance hierarchies as a social construct in dogs.
One paper that I came across a couple of years ago to measure the how letting dogs "win" in games, a common snippet spouted by Cesar et al, influences dominant behaviour... it doesn't: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159101001927, also http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0602_01#.UwUzXfl_uD8

Positive reinforcement is "theory"? Are you implying that it has not been empirically proven? Jeez, B.F. Skinner would be rolling in his grave! I think you're getting somewhat confused by what you're trying to say.
There are a couple of broad approaches to training.
One is to reward stuff you like, and not reward stuff you don't like.
Another is to reward stuff you like, and actively punish things you don't like.
Another is to reward stuff you like by giving the dog relief from the punishment he gets for not carrying out the behaviour.

These broadly define all the ways we can teach a new behaviour. Some are nice, some are not. These are not theoretical, no more than evolution is theoretical... they have been abundantly proven, irrefutably, time and time and time again.
Where the confusion seems to lie is that you assume that people are saying that the first approach is the only way to teach anything, i.e. positive, reward-based training.
But it's not. You can also train a dog by punishing it. Or by stopping a punishment from happening any more. Within these three encompassing explanations for how learning occurs, there are a myriad of combinations of training techniques. In fact, there is an infinite number, because everyone who trains a dog has their own way of doing it.
So, there isn't a "best" method for training in terms of actually teaching a new behaviour. If it works, it works (though some are more effective than others). If you want your dog to do X, Y, or Z, you can use any of the above. If done properly, they'll all work.
However, there's a reason why qualified people (people like your doctor, your dentist, your vet, your kids' teachers) choose the first approach, that of positive reinforcement (and negative punishment, e.g. withholding a desired reward, Time-Out). I'm pretty sure you know why they choose this. But for those who don't, using forms of training that involve aversives (physical punishment, pain, fear, startle, intimidation, discomfort etc etc) has a high degree of fall-out leading to some potentially serious behavioural problems.
When used properly, and it must be used properly with exquisite timing, physical punishment and aversion will suppress an unwanted behaviour... but it will not inform the animal what it's meant to do instead. This lack of "explanation" is deeply distressing for an animal, and distress impedes good learning,. Using aversives also stops the animal from enjoying learning. And so teaching by aversion results in a reduction, sometimes catastrophic, in effective learning.
There is also a very real danger of suppressing the underlying emotion which drove the unwanted behaviour... but emotions cannot be suppressed for long. This suppression is what Cesar relies upon, and it can look quite dramatic... but do you ever notice that Cesar never does follow-up programs?!
I could go on and on. There are many books written on the topic. But I'm pretty sure you know what I'm trying to say.
So yes, there are other ways to train a dog. But they're not ethical, they're not anywhere near as effective, and they tend to damage the dog/human bond to some degree or other. But please do not say that none of this is proven, because that's not true.

DBB

h2005 wrote: »

Pretty narrow minded view to have.

This has already been dealt with h2005. Please don't drag it up again.
Do not reply to this post on-thread.
Thanks,
DBB