Victoria/Cesar stand off!!

[Mattie]

BTW, I think there is nothing wrong with learning by observing, but to call oneself a behaviorist, one should have some understanding of behavior.

Other people call me both a trainer and behaviourist and I often find it a lot easier to agree

After all, we have to deal with a lot of cockamamie ideas that dog behaviourists come up with, don't we?

Many of them are also very dangerous for both the owner and the dog.

[Missymay]

Ah, most behaviorists are also trainers. My behaviorist is an incredible trainer!!

But not all trainers are behaviorists or even have an understanding of behavior.

[Cracker]

Semantics and vocabulary are extremely important in proper communication. YOU may understand what it is he means when he says migrate but many will not. And if I were to consider the importance of "migratory walks" compared to the importance of the damage inherent in "alpha rolls" I would much rather dogs get less exercise than they get forced into learned helplessness, but that's just me.

Effective communication relies on a common knowledge between the communicators as to what means what. This of course is what makes internet communication like this difficult and why people are constantly misunderstanding their dogs and vice versa.

We have the ability of language, it is important we use it in a way that is efficient and clear. Mr. Millan's vocabulary and metaphors/analogies are misleading to the general public and this is how dogs get hurt.

If you take a good look at the science and observation that has gone into the study of animal (canine) communication and behaviour you will see that as much as it cannot always be proven within a sliver of a doubt, much success has been made in determining the calming signals etc that are a large part of the co operative society of canines. Logic and inference of course come into play here, nine times out of ten the signal will mean what we think it means...so therefore that is the correct translation. Until our dogs learn to speak english this is the best link we have to what they mean in their communications with us.

So to dismiss what we DO know about these signals is irresponsible. We are responsible for the well being of our canine friends.

I also think it is important to realize even within our communications with our fellow man, that many times what they SAY is not always what they mean (I'm not speaking about deliberate misleading, but just unclear communication)and many things have to be taken into account before a decision can be made as to the true meaning of their communications.

[cindynok]

Cesar has no formal educaton in ethology, learning theory or behavior. He learned by watching dogs on his grandfather's farm.

Yes,
I speak English but does not make me an English teacher.

Watching the behavior of animals as a child too--then working other jobs, crossing the border, and deciding to be a dog behavior expert is very frightening. Did he and does he really understand what he is seeing? I really did not realize his complete lack of education.

In our state you have to be certified to be a vet tech. And many rescues have been charged for practicing vet medicine with out a license.

You have to certificate and license to apply artifical nails, but you can claim to be and expert in a field and the public takes your word for it. I wonder if he even has adequate knowledge of a dog's physiology. He adjusts the leash up on the neck and tightens and says it slows the dogs brain down, maybe it is a reduction of oxygen and momentary confusion.


This list has really opened my eyes, not because of what has been posted but caused me to do research. Thank you!
Cindy

[Doggie Python]

Although scientific discovery and study are important, learning strictly from books, isolation experiments in laboratories, and the opinions of other human beings has it's limits in the real world.

Most folks who work (and are successful) with animals will tell you that true learning and gaining a intuition or "feel" comes from working with the animals themselves. The animals will always be the best teachers, IMO.

There are certain things horses, dogs, and even messed up teenagers have taught me which simply can't be learned without hands-on/eyes-on experience. Do I also study the science of behavior, operant conditioning, classical conditioning, psychology and read books about horses, dogs, and family dynamics to compare and expand what I've learned? Of course I do.

Is there a danger in embracing science and the opinions of other humans without that personal discovery with a critical eye? Yes.

A lot of trainers get so caught up in "radical behaviorism" that they never learn actual dogmanship or social learning skills. To me that would be like trying to ride a horse with no seat, feel for the reigns, balance, leg or the ability to move a frightened horse past an obsticle through trust in their rider...and these are huge, flight-over-fight, prey animals you can't bully or muscle!

"Feel" and intuition have their place. Some have a gift for this area, and some don't. Book learning and rigid belief systems alone, will only take the average trainer so far.

[Missymay]

So you assume that people with a scientific background in behavior do not actually work with dogs?

My trainer has helped thousands of dogs, holding everything from puppy classes to leading seminars on reactive dogs. She just earned her ARCHEX this weekend with one of her dogs while I earned my RLII with one of mine.

Of course actually working with animals is an important criteria. How many of thodays leading experts in the field do not work with dogs? McConnell, Pryor, Miller, Aloff, they all have their own facilities.

The difference between them and Cesar is that they have the behavioral background to understand what they are doing while they are working with dogs in the real world.

Given the choice between someone who has worked with many, many behaviorally challanged dogs and has a solid background in ethology, behavior, learning theory ect or someone who has just worked with many, many dogs, the choice is a bit of a nobrainer for me. I'll take education and experience every day over experience with no educational background to back up what you believe. I'll look to people who submit themselves to critiacl analysis of their methods and theories and accepts peer review rather than someone who makes it up as he goes along.

BTW, the work in labs is extremely valuable because in a lab, all of the variables can be controlled and changed out or added in as needed. That makes taking those learnings into the real world much easier than taking real world situations and trying to figure out what is going on. In the real world, it is rarely possible to narrow the variables to one or two things.

[Mattie]

Semantics and vocabulary are extremely important in proper communication.

When giving help and advice either on these boards in person to person, we do have to speak in a language they can understand. Words like operant conditioning, classical conditioning etc completely confuses the average pet dog owner but they don't want to show just how little they know by asking what it means. There are many posts on this board that goes over my head, someone coming to ask for help will have a lot less knowledge than I do. I have been in their position and know what it is like to be drowned with words that others on the board seem to accept but to me it was all gobbledy gook. This shows a lack of understanding of the ordinary pet dog owner. A good trainer or behaviourist will not talk like this but use words that the owner can understand.

If I am teaching riding or stable management I don't start with all the long words, I start with very simple words and I slowly introduce the correct words for what I am teaching them. The student learns quickly and easily.

He may not use the correct words, but he does manage to get the owners to understand what he is doing, even if it is the wrong way, he speaks in a language that the owners can understand which is extremely important when trying to give someone help and advice.

[Doggie Python]

And, so does Victoria.

[Missymay]

Mattie, I never hesitate to ask for more information. If I know anything, it is how little I know

And while Cesar does use simple words, his concepts rely on dominating and physical corrections. His entire philosphy relies on domination. Nervous dominance does not even make sense.

[Doggie Python]

Nervous dominance does not even make sense.

Yep. It's definately a Cesarism, LOL!

I'll take a stab (based on his philosophies) that this term is describing a dog who is trying to control the situation or direct the activities of others due to being a naturally high strung dog, the dog's own insecurity, lack of social skills, lack of leadership and/or trust in their social group.

This is describing "nervous" as an emotional and mental state, and "dominance" as a behavior.

Personally, I have a bit of an issue with the word "reactivity". Can I get a clear, scientific definition of that one?

[Missymay]

Reactivity is fear based behavior. It is not a choice the dog makes, but rather a reaction (hence the term reactivity).

And the dog he described as "nervous dominant" was made so by Cesar. Before Cesar came along, the family was not complaining of aggressive behavior, but high energy play. The dog was clearly frightened when Cesar cornered him and grabbed for his collar. So my take on "Nervous Dominance", considering the context he used it it, would be a dog displaying fear aggression.

Lumping everything under the heading of dominance is not a way to solve behavioral issues. Making a dog walk behind you and checking him with a leash pop does not solve resource guarding. Making a dog eat last will not fix dog/dog aggression.

All it does it set up endless, needless struggles for a position that may not even exist in the mind of the dog.

[Doggie Python]

Reactivity is fear based behavior. It is not a choice the dog makes, but rather a reaction (hence the term reactivity).

For me, this is where the need to study radical behaviorism vs intelligent choice (combined with a few other sciences) became important in understanding aggressive behaviors, their causes, and solutions.

A search of the term "radical behaviorism" will lead you to a lot of opinions and debates which have been going on in the scientific community for many years.

Interesting reading.

[Missymay]

For me, this is where the need to study radical behaviorism vs intelligent choice

Frightened of Skinner, are we? Yes, this is why he got in trouble in the first place. Behavior being controlled by consequences is OK for animals, but when you start applying those concept to people...(ETA I should add a smiley here, it is said in jest)

Anyhow, that is an entirely different discussion.

Reactivity is not in Skinner's court, but rather it is in Pavlov's.

As for free choice, I truly doubt there is some doggie Descartes out there, woofing out "I bark, therefore I am". The avenues of learning available to animals is much more limited than that available to humans, so control the consequences and you do control the behavior.

[Mattie]

Mattie, I never hesitate to ask for more information. If I know anything, it is how little I know

And while Cesar does use simple words, his concepts rely on dominating and physical corrections. His entire philosphy relies on domination. Nervous dominance does not even make sense.

Yes, unfortunately the way he works with dogs the dogs suffer, but he is talking to the owners in a way they can understand so they continue with what he has told them. Many trainers talk in a way that owners don't understand so the owners give up.

I will ask questions Missymay up to a point, if all I am getting back is the same gobbledy gook that I have said I don't understand, then I stop asking.

The rest of this thread has gone over my head, I am completely baffled by it.

[Doggie Python]

I'd say this conversation is perfectly in line with the topic. This is very much about science, the belief systems based upon science, personal experiences, observations, and success rates.

Both Skinner and Pavlov have my respect. So does Karen Pryor. So does Jane Goodall...and many others. But their discoveries and opinions are part of a larger range philosophies, studies, and perspectives. No one person holds all of the answers.

I've certainly seen plenty of evidence my dogs think and make choices. They even seem to have a sense of humor. So, am I just being romantic and anthromorphic towards my two furry parasites?

Good point on Pavlov. Here, I think it's more about perspective and opinion regarding how associative learning/classical conditioning works in the real world, with all of it's variables.

The question is "who" and/or "what" is the dog associating with "who" and/or "what"?

The terminology "reacting in fear" when it comes to aggression still bugs me. It's too general and describes a lot of things we do every day. I was walking down the stairs earlier today, and wondered why I didn't fall on my face...why, I was reacting in fear of gravity by keeping my feet under me.