# Confused!! Positive training vs dominant/submissive



## FishMina (Jul 23, 2017)

I know I just signed up to this forum today, and completely not for this reason - I was looking for good advice for my poodle, but I JUST now read an article which lead to serveral dozen more that have me utterely confused and I'd love your opinions (but please, no fighting about this, I truly need honest nice opinions). Also I wasn't sure which thread category to post this in, apologies if I'm in the wrong one. ALSO big apologies for the length.

A bit of background - I'm 22, live in China with my husband and our two dogs, and love every aspect of being a dog mummy, trainer and learning about dogs. I grew up watching Jan Fennell "the dog listener" and Caesar Milan "the dog whisperer" and was enthralled as a kid to watch documentary after documentary about dog behaviour, links to wolves and wolf packs, dog psychology and why they behave as they dog, such as guarding resources, jumping up to greet, separation anxiety, some dogs dominant while others submissive etc etc etc. I always wanted to study dog training and behaviour though I ended up working as an English teacher in a kindergarten  Anyway, this idea of dog psychology was what I had taken as the norm as a kid and what I hadn't really questioned until now.

In the past few years many more articles about clicker training (which I LOVE and have seen my dogs do amazing things with) and "positive reinforcement" have come up. I have nothing against that, in fact the theory makes utter sense, my dogs are very happy dogs and why wouldn't a dog repeat a behaviour they get praised for instead of running for their life from doing something that we consider bad but they dont. How is a natural dog, an animal with no concept of angry neighbours, to know that humans don't like obsessive barking, right? Im especially loving of this seeing as China is a country with no animal rights and the answer from all if your dog does something bad is "just beat it" ... "but that's cruel!" ... "no its not, just beat some sense into it" (yes I can speak Chinese, they do say that, everywhere)

BUT I just spent the past few hours streaming through articles that go quite a bit further...

1. A lot of positive reinforcement websies and articles now say that the "wolfpack" mind of a dog is a complete and utter myth, has no base in fact (??) that dogs just want affection and have no concept of the mind of a wolf. They explain that the dog has become too far removed from the wolf and couldn't possibly share the same thought patterns, that dogs are not dominant or sumbissive but just have shy or boisterous personalities like humans can have, that dogs in the home or feral dog packs do not form hierarchies like previously believed, and that "problem issues" such as growling over food is because of anxiety that you might take it away and they wont get to finish it, etc. not because they are trying to show their ownership of that food and you as a lesser member do not have the "right" or "status" to take it from them. All the things I took for being the norm, people are now saying is nonsense? Please tell me your opinions on this, do you feel one theory is right over the other, or that the two can be shared (which I had always been cool with) and why? 

2. They then go on to say that "dominant/submissive theory" is used ONLY in conjunction with abusive methods such as using shock/prong/choke collars (horrible horrble inventions!!) or physically abusing or hurting your best friend in order to show your dominance. This was never what I picked up as a child - I read books of and saw shows of Jan Fennell walk through a front door, gently but unmovingly ignore a persistently irritating barker and jumper until it calmed and as she said 'submitted' to her being a calmer but more assertive leader in the house, and when she called it, it came calmly to her instead of getting flared up again. She explained this as being that the dog was trying to show his position of house protector (the "alpha" dogs role, having been forced into it by various unknowing actions of the owners) and Jan showed she would not bow to being beneath this dogs status, but would not threaten it either. No shouting or hurting, and praise when the dog submitted, no abuse or pain, just a simple theory which I understood as a kid. Another example was that if the dog refused to come to you while off-leash, it was trying to lead the way as the alpha, and her best method was to simply walk in the other direction and not give in to chasing the dog. No dog wants to be without his pack, she said, and both she and I have never had a failing with doing this, I must say, my dogs over the years have come to me every time I have walked away when they are trying to give me the run-around, and they havent done it since! She said quickly the dog will see that you are deciding where to lead it, not the dog. None of the things I saw, as far as my teenage memory will pick up, had any abuse or pain involved, (though I havent watched Milan in quite a few years, I dont have a TV or youtube in China I know there is a lot of controversy there) and I was so shocked to read again and again tonight that anything about the "wolfpack" theory or "alpha status" theories in a dog's mind had anything to do with pain or fear. How did these two get so strongly associated, except in the form of some power-mad idiots who want to bully and hurt their dog into fear and submission, which I never remembered seeing or reading about before in the terms of how to be a leader like in a wolf pack.

I just took it to be that if you acted like the calm but strong leader and decided who made the rules while being gentle and calm (like I think we'd all want a leader to be - no cruelty!) then you could lead a dog and it would follow you as someone to trust, providing food and walks and fun but with clear boundaries because the alpha must decide this, and every dog needs an alpha (or so I thought?)

If anyone has any opinions on this, theories of their own, or maybe some good articles about it - I would LOVE to read! My brain is all mushed up now and I have one thing swearing blind that positive reinforcement is for namby pamby idiots who are driving their dogs to doom, and another saying wolf packs have no alpha or leader (?!?!?!?!) and neither do dogs (?!?!?!?)

Thanks so much (if you made it to the end) for reading  I'd love opinions please.

Fish

EDIT - Id also like to make it strongly known that I am not and never will be an advocate for physical punishment or any kind of abusive methods, not ever. A mother dog nips her babies to teach them not to bite, for example, but this is the role of a dog and something humans cannot replicate because we are humans - simple as. Or the so called forced alpha-role for dogs to make them submit to you, whereas in a real dog on dog situation, a dog will CHOOSE to sumbissively get on its back and never because a dominant dog has used its paws to put it there. I only mean alpha to be that of what I thought I was taught as a child - the alpha wolf walks tall, makes the decsions of when to come and go and when it wants attention or to give attention, does not necessarily need agression to show that it leads the hunt (goes for walks), eats the food first (no begging off my dinner plate please!), has the pups with its chosen mate (haha no correlation there, i dont have kids) and owners are therefore CHOSEN by the dogs as respected leaders to listen to (as these elements are the staples of a dogs life), as long as the leader maintains that status. And even this idea now, I have questioned because of all this reading! I only want to learn the best for my dogs, only this. I am always open to new ideas.


----------



## FishMina (Jul 23, 2017)

*Just a few of the artciles that sparked this confuzzling thought train...*

https://www.dogtraining.world/dominance-in-dog-training-debunked-or-is-it/
- saying that positive reinforcement was ridiculous and dogs absolutely think like a wolf, no doubt

Positive Training v. Dominance Theory – Canine Train Tracks
- saying that wolf pack theory has been debunked (like it's a yeti or bigfoot sighting) and that being an alpha is only associated with pain or punishment

Yes, I give dogs electric shocks and use spike chokers... but I'm NOT cruel, says Hollywood's favourite pet guru Cesar Millan | Daily Mail Online
- the whole caesar milan debate I've only just realised was going on as I havent had access to TV or youtube for about 4 years


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

Great questions, Fish! It's so funny, just this morning a gentleman brought Jan's book to me at our coffee club breakfast. I had never heard of it before. It led me to feel like I often do: that we still know ridiculously little about dogs. I don't have the answers you are looking for. I just do what I feel is best for my dogs. That includes never using physical punishment and doing positive reinforcement training. Would I ever use a prong collar? Maybe, if my dog needed it for me to be safe handling it. However, I'd try gentler methods first (and I have, and they work just fine for us). I do believe in being like my dogs' parent--being firm and consistent with them, so they feel safe knowing that I'm in control of them, just the way children feel safer with authoritative parents.


----------



## FishMina (Jul 23, 2017)

What you just said about being a dog's parent - you put it just the way I was thinking but didn't know the words! A child may not want to go to bed at 8pm but parents know they will be too tired the next day, your dog may not want to stay quietly in a crate while you go to the shops but you know that chewing your wires wont end in happiness! Parents just need to be firm and live with it when kids get mad because they know they are doing good in the end (words taken almost directly from my poor mum and dad, I have 4 siblings, haha they had so many teenage years to get through).

And yeah I get you, do what you think is best and also what works - if it works for you and your dogs, why change it? I like that.

Haha, my mum bought me Jan's book (or one of them) when I was eleven (she knew I would never stop being mad about animals, I was the only one in my house) and honestly I enjoyed it thoroughly and still go back to it when I'm bored.


----------



## MollyMuiMa (Oct 13, 2012)

BENEVOLENT; Being pre-disposed to acts of kindness
DICTATOR; Someone who has absolute power

So armed with treats and a leash I consider myself (in the widest definition) a 
BENEVOLENT DICTATOR! LOL!!!!

I am very sure my Molly would agree! I am also of the belief that there is no need to use cruelty to train a dog, (and to many 'cruelty' is subjective)but depending on the dog's temperament, sometimes mildly coercive tactics have to be used.......but only without anger or force!


----------



## FishMina (Jul 23, 2017)

hahaha Molly mummy that's genius  I would totally agree with you there


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

I think there are a number of strands to this debate, but here is an attempt to unpick some of them.

The early work on wolf packs and "dominance" was done through studying captive wolf packs. David Mech, who more or less started the Alpha wolf theory, has tried hard to change the thinking it has produced - studying packs in the wild reveals much more of a family structure, with a breeding pair of adults raising cubs helped by older offspring: Wolf News and Info - L. David Mech 

Once the concept of Alpha wolf was embedded in popular consciousness it was extrapolated to dogs, despite there being very few parallels between the behaviour of groups of domestic dogs and wolf packs, even had it been valid in wolf packs. Studies of free ranging village dogs reveal very different social structures and dogs in homes are different again. Dominance has a very specific meaning in behavioural science, but became short hand for being in charge. Owners were told they needed to be "alpha" or "dominant", and a number of behaviours were prescribed to achieve this, from the comparatively harmless (eating before your dog, always going through doors first, etc) to the potentially dangerous (alpha rolls, choking, proving who is boss, forcing dogs into position or to "face their fears"). Practically every natural dog behaviour was seen as a sign of "dominance" - jumping up to greet/refusing to greet at all, soiling the house, barking, fear reactivity, resource guarding, asking to play, humping, etc, etc, and the answer to all of them was for the owner to one way or another force the dog to submit. Add in a dose of new age mysticism, with "energy flows" etc, and things can look very bad for dogs. Cesar Milan was a very charismatic, unqualified dog trainer who epitomised these theories, especially in his early shows. Too often "calm submission" was in fact learned helplessness - a sign of a dog that has learned that keeping absolutely still and doing nothing is the best way of avoiding further punishment. Professional behaviourists begged National Geographic not to run the shows, but they were good television: dramatic, with contrived conflict and confrontation, a magic bullet solution, and an apparent happy ending, and just enough good advice in the mix (predominantly that dogs need exercise and consistency as well as affection) to keep the debate about him going.

Meanwhile the movement amongst qualified trainers and behaviourists was towards an approach to training and managing dogs based upon research into the psychology of learning and dog behaviour, with a corresponding focus on understanding what is driving the dog's behaviour and the force-free, reward based methods that can be used to change unwanted behaviours. Partly this has been driven by ethics (most of us would prefer not to hurt our dogs), partly by pragmatism (harsh methods can have unexpected consequences and make matters worse down the line). There has been more high quality research into dog behaviour in the last 20 years than all the preceding centuries, and more and more is being revealed through brain scans and other work, revealing how humans and dogs have co-evolved, and just how entwined our worlds have become. We live in very exciting times!

To get a deeper understanding I would highly recommend Professor John Bradshaw's "In defence of dogs", which is scholarly but fairly readable and covers all the arguments very well.

eta: If there is a benevolent dictator round here I fear it is Tilly-cat!


----------



## FishMina (Jul 23, 2017)

This makes a lot of sense, especially this part you wrote:

(quote) Too often "calm submission" was in fact learned helplessness - a sign of a dog that has learned that keeping absolutely still and doing nothing is the best way of avoiding further punishment. ------

I think dogs, as highly feeling and thinking creatures, deserve the respect they give and to force them into fear and submission is ridiculous. A respectful dog does not need to have any fear involved. True respect is loving the boundaries because of loving the boundary setter, not because you feel there is no other option.

About the wolf studies - I knew about that as the base for the studies or packs, but have also read of and seen further studies of wild wolves, notably studying wild packs in situ with very limited human involvement and amazing remote controlled camerawork that has seen the pack working in a structured way with one or two wolves leading the rest, and the rest respecting their leadership and decisions. I think it does have base. But again I agree with you that not every natural dog behaviour is a sign of dominance, nor that a dog is constantly striving to be your leader just by jumping up or running ahead on a walk! No way... 

I do think though that there must be a need for a leader who sets the rules though, I have seen firsthand (though I make NO claim to be very experienced or an expert) that if I dont make the rules my dogs will, and try everything they can to make their rules come first if I'm not strong and consistent about mine, to the point of being rude or snappy to me when I enforce mine, like "let me clean up your chew toys when i see fit". I think that doesn't need a treat thrown the other way to make a dog happy while I scoop up their toys unnoticed, I think that needs a knowledge on the dogs part of me being allowed to move those toys when I wish, without 'permission'. 

I definintely dont think it deserves all the mystical, dominant force I read about today though. I think kindness goes a long way and respect from either side is crucial.

I've heard of that book and would love to read it, I'll try and order it 

Thanks for such detail!


----------



## snow0160 (Sep 20, 2016)

Welcome, FishMina! How cool is it that you are joining us all the way from China. I love the multiculturalism on this forum. I am also happy to see that poodle forum is able to get past the Great Firewall. I know many social media platforms (ie facebook, youtube, and google etc..)are not available. 

Isn't pet ownership rather a new concept to Chinese urban society? It was something introduced in China in the last 20 years. I know that certain cities like Beijing limit its residences to one dog under a certain weight. I would imagine how people view or treat their dogs would be vastly different for those who live in rural versus urban environments in China. I know that the pet industry in China has grown from non-existence to a multi-billion dollar industry in a very short time which is quite impressive. I figured this is due to the rise of the Chinese economy and the greater purchasing power of their middle class. As the pet industry expands, I would love to see how the nation might evolve on the matter of animal rights. I get the feeling there is never going to be a consensus on canine behavior, and therefore, old theories will get debunked (ie Caesar Milan's method) while new ones will emerge to take its place but there is going to be many responses to it. 

There are many schools of thought when it comes to canine obedience in the US, which has evolved a lot in the past 50 years....and this is partly due to the progress we've made in behavioral psychology. Even now, people here rarely agree on one method for dog training. Lucky's breeder had told me that when she was young, dog training has been a lot more militant in the US. This woman is in her late 80s and we chat frequently about Lucky's service dog training. The views on equipment such as prong, shock, or choke collars vary greatly. 

Service dog trainers in the U.S. differ vastly in their training method. I've seen a lot of disagreement even on the requirements of public access and even more on the methods. Not all method works for all dogs and some tailor it to the temperament of the individual dog.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

I believe research shows that wolf packs are mainly family based - young adults led by their parents or another senior pair, which is a comfortable fit with the concept of human as parent and dog as child. Except that dogs are not wolves, of course, and research into their social structures even as free ranging packs shows very different behaviour patterns to those of a modern wolf family. I think we do better to focus on the growing body of research into dog behaviour, and abandon the romantic idea that when we walk down the street with our well groomed poodle or papillon we are somehow reliving an ancient past when our hunter gatherer ancestors ran with the wolves! 

I absolutely agree with you about rules and structure - I think dogs thrive on consistency and predictability. But I do think that those rules are best taught by making compliance worth while for the dog, and recognising that many of the demands of living in a complex world run by humans go against the rules dogs know by instinct and learn from other dogs. To take your example of putting away toys, if, when they are pups, tidying up toys is a reliable predictor of a final game and then a settle down time with a good chew it becomes something to look forward to rather than a tussle over ownership - even as adults it may be worth a try. Resource guarding in general can usually be circumvented by playing lots of games of trades and swapsies with puppies, teaching the human rule (if you let me have the thing in your mouth good things happen for dogs) in place of the dog rule (it is mine, and you are unbelievably rude to try to take it away from me). My dogs politely take turns for treats and to lick out a bowl because I have taught them that brings more treats and licks than trying to grab as much as possible as fast as possible. They come when they are called because when they were young - and occasionally ever since - it meant a treat and games as well as praise, and became established as a Good Thing for Dogs.

A couple more links you may find interesting:
Dr Patricia McConnell's blog (if you have not read her books I would highly recommend them!) The Other End of the Leash ? Patricia McConnell, Ph.D., a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, has made a lifelong commitment to improving the relationship between people and animals.
Dr Ian Dunbar's website - Ian Dunbar has long advocated for positive training techniques, and proper socialisation of puppies. Dog Star Daily |


----------



## Click-N-Treat (Nov 9, 2015)

Genome sequencing has proven that dogs are not domesticated wolves. Dogs and wolves share a common ancestor genetically, and that ancestor is thought to have gone extinct. Dogs and wolves diverged from this common ancestor somewhere between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago. Treating dogs like wolves makes no sense because they are not tame wolves, but dogs. Dogs have been living with humans for thousands and thousands of years. 

Some easy to understand science: https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/accumulating-glitches/dogs_are_not_domesicated_wolves

The good stuff: Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs

There's no reason to treat dogs like wolves, using alpha techniques and aggression toward them, because dogs are not wolves. What looks like "calm submission" is learned helplessness. If you do behavior X, you will be hurt, teaches a dog not to do behavior X. It does absolutely nothing to help a dog understand what you do want. You see a dog that goes from one no to the next no, never really sure about what the right thing to do is. I train the exact opposite of this. 

I am non-violent in my training. I focus 95% of my energy in teaching the dog what I want from her. I almost never correct my dog, because I don't have to. My dog is so clear on what a YES behavior is, she works toward YES because it's rewarding. Treats, praise, making me laugh, petting and cuddling, playing with toys, I focus on helping Noelle understand what I do want to see. 

We flow from one correct behavior to the next correct behavior, because I've taught her a chain of good things that make me happy. Walk with me through the house to the back door. Go out in the yard to play and do your business. Return to me when I call you. Come inside for a treat. Sit for your treat. Noelle knows how to go from one yes to the next yes. 

In training my dogs, I like what Molly said about a benevolent dictator. I'm in charge, and my dogs understand this. However, I am kind and fun, so my dogs enjoy being with me. I use clickers and treats to help my dogs understand what I want them to do, and reward them richly when they do what I want. I make sure that I think of situations from my dog's point of view, so I can be compassionate. 

Because I am training a diabetes alert dog, I need Noelle to look after me. How can she look after me if I've planted seeds of distrust in our relationship? Think about it. If someone you loved got angry and punched you in the face, would you trust them 100% to never do that again? Or, even if they were sorry, and even if they said they would never do it again, and even if months went by... The next time this person got angry and stood tall, and balled a fist, would you trust you wouldn't get punched in the face? No, you would cringe from the expected blow, whether it landed or not. Seeds of distrust were sown in your relationship and you cannot unplant them. I cannot plant seeds of distrust in my relationship with Noelle because I need her to save my life. I need her to trust me more tomorrow than she does today. My training is built on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Our relationship is a dance. I lead. She follows. Noelle and I both laugh.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Click-N-Treat thank you for beating me to the genomic answer to the dog/wolf question. The notion that dogs are merely tamed wolves has been one of the worst things to happen to dogs in a long time, extending from how we train them to what we feed them.

That said, I think that if you read about learning theory and study it well you will understand that there are four quadrants and that they all have their uses. Clearly it is desirable to start at +R, positives that increase desired behaviors, I also think there are times to tell dogs (and young humans) when they are wrong as gently as possible. I will say that much of my training and that of most of my friends involves the proper use of pinch collars (no jerking or leash pops allowed) where the dog decides how much of a correction they need to feel to decide to stop doing something they shouldn't. Javelin loves getting his pinch collar on since he knows it means we will be working together.


----------



## Click-N-Treat (Nov 9, 2015)

Oh of course negative punishment is required for teaching. For my dogs, losing my presence is a negative experience. So, if they act like wild dogs in my room, out they go and I shut the door. My dogs experience this as negative reinforcement. Yes, we do need to correct them. With a prong collar the dog decides how much of a correction it's getting. I used a prong collar on Honey the wonder service dog because she was a sled dog and thought I was a sled! Noelle doesn't need a prong collar, her martingale tightening chokes her to the point of coughing, so I use a harness attached tot he martingale. 

I just spend more time working on YES than NO. And I agree that the wolf/alpha/dominance theory was a disaster for dog training.


----------



## rj16 (Jan 30, 2017)

Click-N-Treat said:


> *Oh of course negative punishment is required for teaching. For my dogs, losing my presence is a negative experience. So, if they act like wild dogs in my room, out they go and I shut the door.* My dogs experience this as negative reinforcement. Yes, we do need to correct them. With a prong collar the dog decides how much of a correction it's getting. I used a prong collar on Honey the wonder service dog because she was a sled dog and thought I was a sled! Noelle doesn't need a prong collar, her martingale tightening chokes her to the point of coughing, so I use a harness attached tot he martingale.
> 
> I just spend more time working on YES than NO. And I agree that the wolf/alpha/dominance theory was a disaster for dog training.


I'm so glad negative punishment was brought up in this conversation! I find that all too often it gets left out when it is a really great tool. I'm sure most people use it without thinking about it consciously, but that's a missed opportunity. 

My half (more like one tenth, really) formed thoughts on this... It's often pointed out that dogs are not wolves and that it isn't useful to to use wolf theories on dogs but what doesn't seem to get highlighted is that we aren't dogs OR wolves! Entirely anecdotally, I'm sure most people who have spent time with multiple dogs can see that they have a way of figuring things out (sometimes well, other times it doesn't match with what _we_ want.) But does that translate perfectly to how they interact with us? I think not! It is much easier to take dominance (or whatever you want to call it) out of the equation and apply learning theory. I suspect that with this lenses and enough patience you could break down and explain any dog/human interaction. So basically, until I've been proven to the contrary, my way of thinking about all this is that yes, social hierarchy is a thing amongst dogs, but that concept is of little to no use to humans training and living with dogs. 

Gosh I hope that even remotely made sense... Thank you to others who have taken the time to type out much more eloquent answers!


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

rj16, well said.


----------



## lisasgirl (May 27, 2010)

As far as human as leader or dictator goes, I think of it like this: my dog lives in Human World. Human World is very different from Dog World. If Archie could organize his life himself, he would have constant access to the outdoors, he would chew on whatever seemed chewable, he'd pee and poo wherever made the most sense, and he'd bark at anything he wanted. Leashes wouldn't exist. You know? It would basically be one big run outside with humans around to play with him on demand.

But he doesn't live in that world. He lives in Human World. He's surrounded by human things, his life is dictated by a human schedule, and he has to follow human rules. So he has to learn to walk on a leash, leave the furniture intact, listen to commands, greet politely, quiet down when asked, etc.

So when I think about setting clear boundaries for Archie, it's not so much a matter of him respecting my authority or being submissive to me - it's so that he understands the world he lives in. A world I happen to control (at least as far as his experience of it goes). If he can learn the rules of Human World, then we'll both be happier. So the clearer I can make those, the better. It doesn't mean I have to be mean about it, but I do have to be clear and consistent.

The best "dominance" trainers are usually doing some variation on that. Stuff like never letting the dog out of the crate unless they're calm is about communication - it's telling the dog "You don't get what you want unless you go about it in this way." That's good information for the dog. A message like, "I'd rather you didn't do this, but sometimes you can do it and sometimes you can't," is very confusing for the dog. I mean, imagine you were in an alien world and you found out that sometimes you had to push a button to open doors and other times you could walk right through the walls, but you didn't know which was which. You'd probably run face-first into a lot of walls before you figured it out (if you ever did). It'd be much better if the aliens taught you one way to do things so you didn't have a bloody nose quite as often.


----------



## Click-N-Treat (Nov 9, 2015)

RJ16,

I think the reason people don't talk about punishment is we too often link punishment with violence. If the dog is digging holes in the yard, fill a hole with water, and stick the dog's head underwater until it nearly drowns. That will teach it not to dig holes in the yard. Hang a dog from the fence post by the collar as punishment for leaping the fence, etc. Those old school methods are incredibly violent. 

Punishment doesn't mean violent. Removing your presence is punishment. Coating a wire with hot sauce mixed with dish soap is punishment. Even a gentle, Nah-ah, is punishment. A little tug on the leash when the dog wanders off, or won't quit sniffing, that's punishment too. 

I use positive reinforcement the most and non-violent methods, but that doesn't mean I don't correct my dog. Purely positive won't give the dog enough information. It's like teaching a kid how to write the letter S and allowing them to write it backwards without telling them it's wrong. 

Dog is chewing on a sandal. 
Take sandal away. (punishment) 
Give the dog a chew toy. (positive) 
Praise the dog for chewing the chew toy. (positive)

No need to go old school and hit the dog in the face with the sandal and yell no. I think the old school method of smacking and cracking dogs gets in the way of discussing corrections and punishments. Dogs, like kids, need information about yes and no. They don't need violence to learn.


----------



## Click-N-Treat (Nov 9, 2015)

Well said, Lisasgirl. We teach our dogs to live in our world and surprisingly, amazingly, they can not only live with us but thrive.


----------



## patk (Jun 13, 2013)

besides reading up on bf skinner's theory of operant conditioning (positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment), which is probably desirable before using the terms he employed, here are some interesting articles that add to the discussion re training methods, dominance theory, etc.

Pets - An interview with canine behaviorist Jean Donaldson (an interview with jean donaldson, well-known trainer)

Dominance is a dog training philosophy | Patricia McConnell | McConnell Publishing Inc. (trained behaviorist)

The "D" Word: Dominance | The Bark (karen london, mcconnell colleague)

Wolves cooperate but dogs submit, study suggests | Science | AAAS

p.s the last para of the 4th article has an interesting comment about poodles!


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

I find the nature v nurture issues raised in the last article absolutely fascinating! Do we lovingly teach our dogs to be over dependent on us? And have we inculcated into them our own hierarchical leanings? And would dogs historically raised to live in packs, like huskies and fox hounds, show different behaviours? What would happen with dogs raised by dogs, rather than by humans? So much still to discover...


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Here is that comment from the Science paper regarding poodles and several other breeds. "_Other researchers, for example, have shown that when in packs, poodles and Labrador retrievers are more aggressive than are malamutes and German shepherds._" I wonder if it is related to the historical work of those breeds as to those differences. Hunting retrievers mostly work alone whereas malamutes must work together and I suppose there may be conditions where GSD also would work as teams (and at the very least be teamed with a shepherd).

I think the idea of being dominant around dogs is not evil bad. But bring us back to Molly's notation of the humans as benevolent dictators. It isn't bad to be the boss as long as you are not arbitrary or capricious in exercising your responsibilities as a leader.

I am reminded of the following verse (number 16) from the Dao De Jing.

_“The best leaders are those their people hardly know exist.__
The next best is a leader who is loved and praised.
Next comes the one who is feared.
The worst one is the leader that is despised …_
_The best leaders value their words, and use them sparingly.__
When they have accomplished their task,
the people say, “Amazing!
We did it, all by ourselves!”_

Tao Te Ching Quotes



This verse has informed my teaching for decades. It is as easily applied to training a dog as teaching a person. Once any of my dogs has clearly learned something to the point where I am sure they know what they are supposed to do I let them decide to do the right thing and then praise them for the good decision. My current class watches Javelin eat dinner during my computer set up time each night. I don't tell him to sit anymore and I don't tell him to make eye contact anymore. He used to need cues for both in the distracting new environment of a room full of strangers. Before I release him to eat I tell him "good decision!" He is always very pleased with himself.


I've digressed, but I hope I have conveyed the idea that it is possible to be a benevolent leader and I do think that is what dogs (and children) need more than parents who are their friends.


----------



## Beautiful Blue (Apr 24, 2017)

"The best leaders value their words, and use them sparingly.
When they have accomplished their task,
the people say, “Amazing!
We did it, all by ourselves!”

I just tweeted this quote.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

I have to confess that I struggle with the use their words sparingly part sometimes, but then again I do have to talk in lecture class. In lab I do allow my students to make their own discoveries though. It makes them work hard, but also instills their new knowledge more deeply.


----------



## rj16 (Jan 30, 2017)

Click-N-Treat said:


> RJ16,
> 
> I think the reason people don't talk about punishment is we too often link punishment with violence. If the dog is digging holes in the yard, fill a hole with water, and stick the dog's head underwater until it nearly drowns. That will teach it not to dig holes in the yard. Hang a dog from the fence post by the collar as punishment for leaping the fence, etc. Those old school methods are incredibly violent.
> 
> ...


Amen! 

I'm inclined to think that negative punishment isn't discussed purely as a matter of marketing. I do hope that as the field continues to grow and evolve we will see more nuance. 

All this talk of benevolent dictators reminded me of a class on child development I took in university. 

Erik Erikson and others posit that there are two key aspects of parenting that determine parenting style: control and responsiveness. This gives us a nice little table (like the quadrants of operant conditioning):

+ control /+ responsiveness = authoritative
+ control / - responsiveness = authoritarian
- control /+ responsiveness = permissive
- control / - responsiveness = uninvolved

Diana Baumrind, in the 60s and 70s, used this framework to study preschool aged children and found that authoritative parenting had the best outcomes (happy, well-adjusted, self-reliant, cooperative children) as opposed to moody and unfriendly (authoritative parenting) and impulsive and aggressive (permissive parenting). This held true as the children aged, the children of authoritative parents demonstrated higher cognitive and social competencies at 8-9 and as adolescents. 

So...
Her definition of authoritative parenting: "flexible, democratic style of parenting in which warm accepting parents provide guidance and control while allowing the child some say in deciding how best to meet challenges and obligations." 

Sounds a lot like how to be a good dog parent too.


----------



## galofpink (Mar 14, 2017)

Some very useful and simple to boot thoughts/ideas presented here RJ/Click/Lily - I love the comments and quotes made about being a strong leader and providing dogs/kids with opportunities to think and respond within your rules system/guidelines.

Thanks for the reminder of the Erik Erikson matrix, rj! Takes me back to my high-school sociology class days...but a good reminder of the advantages of the proper application of authority by being authoritative. It really is a confidence booster for dogs/kids when they know that they've made a good decision within framework. Just instills the action so much more deeply than the just telling and doing approach. And as a handler it tickles you pink inside to know that your dog did that on their own!


----------



## Click-N-Treat (Nov 9, 2015)

Oh, I love this discussion. Lily, I never thought of using "good decision" as a praise word, but it makes total sense. I'm just now trusting Noelle has learned not to sniff people as we pass them in stores. I used to give a gentle leash tug when we got close, but now I'm remembering to keep my end of the leash slack and see how Noelle does. She's not getting in people's way. Good decision. I love that.

Authoritative parenting works with dogs, too. Thanks for the college flashback, RJ.

A little thought on the word dominant. It's not a synonym for domineering. It's not an aggressive term, but people tend to think it is. I was in dog training class and there was a woman in my class. She had the world's happiest golden retriever puppy on her leash. This puppy was frolicking left, right, and jumping around like a nut. So, the dog's mom was saying, in a high pitched excited voice, "Buster, sit. Buster sit. Buster sit. Buster sit!" The more she talked, the happier her dog got. She might as well have been saying, "Buster frolic." 

She told me her dog doesn't listen to her. 

I asked, do you have children? She said she had a four-year-old son. I said, "Your four-year-old is in a restaurant, standing on his chair and about to climb on the table. What do you say?"

She turns, looks at her dog and said, "Buster, sit!"
Boom! Buster's butt was on the ground. No treats, no praise, no leash pop, no coaxing, no pleading. Just her voice large and in charge, sit. Her expression was hilarious. 

She really struggled with being a leader, because she didn't want to be mean to her dog. I let her know you don't have to be mean. You have to be in charge. She was naturally a meek and quiet lady, so I had her imagine herself as Oprah. Oprah is dominant. If Oprah walked into a room full of people talking and said, "Everyone settle down and take your seats," everyone would sit down and shut up. I'm here, I'm in charge, let's do this thing. That's being dominant. 

Dominant over your dog doesn't mean cruel and aggressive. It just means you're the one in charge. You have opposable thumbs and can operate a microwave and the internet. You're already above your dog in status. You're in charge of your dog, and that's a good thing. I think we could substitute the word leader to get us away from the wolf/alpha nonsense, though. 

Anyhow, I watched this student blossom after that. She pretended she was Oprah for the rest of the class. She told her dog what to do, and expected him to do it, because she said it, and she was in charge. Buster grew a ton and was just a wonderful dog by the end of class. And every time she said, "Buster, sit," he sat.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

I didn't get a chance to reply yesterday here, but I like "good decision" because I always say it with a really happy and authoritative tone. I think it help the dog to really understand that they did a great job.

I totally agree with your points about the differences between being dominant and being domineering. The story of the lady with Buster the golden retriever was very funny and reminded me so much of my recent beginner class and the lady with the sheepadoodle.


----------



## lisasgirl (May 27, 2010)

Archie loves it when I pretend to be Oprah. Though I mostly just do the giveaways. "You get a treat, and YOU get a treat, EVERYBODY gets treats!!" :laugh: 

I do think that kind of role-playing can be very helpful, though. There is a very big difference between being a leader and being mean! That's why I've started shifting my wording from "firm" to "clear." When you tell someone to give a dog a command firmly, they tend to turn gruff and mean. But if you say, "You need to be very _clear_ about what you want," then they speak in a confident tone and say exactly what they want. That's been my experience, anyway.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Clear is a good term since a command needs to convey information. Being firm may just mean seeming cranky.


----------



## Click-N-Treat (Nov 9, 2015)

Yes, being clear, i like that. Firm does sound gruff. It's kind of hard to grasp but really exciting to see the change when the quarter drops and a handler gets the idea. 

You get a treat, and you get a treat and YOU get a treat. Freaking hilarious.


----------

