|
|
Location: Lincolnshire
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,994
|
09-08-2011, 11:05 PM
One morning when the camera crew got there, the 'alpha' female was dead and the 'omega' was thought to have killed her. The 'omega' then became the 'alpha' and has sole breeding rights.
Fascinating programme
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,096
|
10-08-2011, 12:23 AM
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg 
That's a good argument actually Tass. I do understand what you mean, even if I appear not to
However, I'd like to quote from James O' Heare (been reading his "Dominance Theory and Dogs" version 1.0, 2003, relatively old, since this discussion started, just to refresh a few angles on the topic).
He suggests (after much exploration and discussion):
Why use the term dominance? Can the interactions and relationships between dogs be accounted for by another theory or term that already exists and that perhaps is more parsimonious? (he feels dom. theory. is not parsimonious - Wys).
Sorry, I don't get this. How is a term parsimonious?
Why would we formulate a new theory to replace an established one when they would refer tothe same thing? One answer is to merely get away from a theory that is known to cause problems and is widely misunderstood and controversial and to offer more heuristic value. It is a matter of opinion as to whether dominance theory should be abandoned completely, and a new paradigm put in its place. The question remains undecided, but the trend seems to be to get away from dominance-talk and to rather refer to such component features as assessment, learning history, control, defence, resource possession, etc.
I.e it is not a fact.
His suggestion involves looking at the component parts of the process. Dominance theory, when an appropriate defination is used, with understnding of it's fluid nature, is the end result of the sum of those processes, imo.
In the context of dog-human relationships, what does dom. theory offer us? ... It is conceivable that dogs perceive human family members as a social group and in that context, apply their organising social behaviours. It is concievable that dogs assess us in some way and when motivated to be intolerant of being controlled they use aggression. Why must we use the term dominance to describe this?
Because it does so very well? And in that sense is parsimonious, in the only way I can understand using that word in this context, as a short cut, brief, quick way to describe the aim and/or end result
Why not simply say that a particular dog is intolerant of being controlled, or that he has a relatively low threshold for aggression? The dominance alternative is to postulate that the dog believes he is dominant in the relationship. This may or may not be the case. It might simply mean that the dog ha seither assessed himself to be superior or has learnt via previous encounters that the human will submit.
The dog doesn't have to believe he is dominant for that to be the case, anymore than he has to believe himself to be big or to be small for that to be so.
However having "assessed himself to be superior" is to consider himself to be dominant and having "learnt.. that the human will submit" covers the complimentary and reciprocal half of a dominance hierarchy- i.e. someone else submitting/deferring.
He is actually saying that the dog has learnt he can having his agenda take priority, i.e he can succesfully dominant/control that individual in that situation. They have established a dominant/deference (or submission) relationship, i.e. a hierarchy.
Again, why is this dominance-talk necessary or helpful? Wny not explain the behaviour in terms of either assessment or learning theory? Certainly learning theory is our primary tool of modifying such behaviour, and so itwould seem to make intuitive sense that we use the same theory to explain and predict such behaviour.
Bach (1999) offered an eloquent explanation of how many dogs learnt to work around ineffective owners in order to satisy their appetitive requirements. She explains how these dogs are often perceived to be dominant, when in fact they simply learned .. to manipulate their environment appropriately to gain satisfaction.
Aggression has never been the only way to control, influence or "dominant" a situation. Manipulating the environment to gain satisfaction puts the manipulator in control. Dogs can be manipulative and control outcomes through a charm offensive, as can humans.
That doesn't mean they are not the individual very effectively controlling/dominating that outcome, with another individual with a differing agenda necessarily deferring in order that that outcome could occur.
We can expect animals to maxmise reinforcers and minimise punishers. Learning theory accounts for this behaviour clearly and concisely, offering extremely high descriptive, explanatory and predictive value, offers a set of clear principles for treating the problem...
Again, learning theory is the process, control or dominance is the end result. That influence can in itself be a very powerful reinforcing, giving access as it does to so many other reinforcers.
This is what I mean about politics, sidestepping and redirecting the focus (i.e to "learning theory" or "manipulation") to avoid using a word that has acquired taboo status and baggage, rather than, as Rune suggests, re-educating people that it is not a dirty word, nor is it about abuse, nor is it synonymous with aggression.
I wish, rather than talking about a ground digging implement with a handle section for reach and leverage, attached to a wide flattened section for cutting and lifting soil, people would call a spade a spade, which is so much more straightforward.
Imo, "dominance " is more honest (and parsimonious in terms of word usage) about what the function and focus of the assessment and learning process is. Otherwise the story is left without a conclusion or purpose.
Yes, I've read the Wickens paper in fact
. I've read so many papers about this subject, I cannot recall them in any detail which is a shame, I wish my memory was better than it is. Oh, sorry, my mistake.
As you were querying if any studies had been done of differences between different breeds in the area of greater or lesser phenotypic neotony and behaviour I assumed you were not familiar with his thesis on that question.
Wys
x
.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
10-08-2011, 07:11 AM
Originally Posted by Brierley
Many moons ago, I watched a TV programme about wolves at Yellowstone Park. The documentary followed a pack of wolves over some time. The 'omega' wolf was full sister to the 'alpha' female. The 'alpha' female consistently bullied and harrassed her sister, injuring her on many occasions and often not letting her eat.
One morning when the camera crew got there, the 'alpha' female was dead and the 'omega' was thought to have killed her. The 'omega' then became the 'alpha' and has sole breeding rights.
Fascinating programme
I recall seeing one where the "omega" wolf became the "alpha". She was a darkish wolf in colour?
I'm actually not very good at watching these programmes. I find the Meerkat Manor upsetting!
Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: Wiltshire UK
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,404
|
10-08-2011, 07:18 AM
In the context this word has been used it is senseless?
|
|
|
|
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
|
10-08-2011, 07:22 AM
Originally Posted by smokeybear
Just skimmed the last few posts, I am struggling with the use of the word "parsimonious"?
In the context this word has been used it is senseless?
rune
|
|
|
|
Location: Wiltshire UK
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,404
|
10-08-2011, 07:24 AM
Originally Posted by rune
Is that all you are struggling with? Well done
rune
HEHEHE
I AM struggling to continue to bite my tongue...........
|
|
|
|
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
|
10-08-2011, 07:27 AM
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg
Was that the one called "Wolf at my Door?"
I recall seeing one where the "omega" wolf became the "alpha". She was a darkish wolf in colour?
Wys
x
I have known groups of entire dogs and bitches where the selected breeding dog (by the owner) has refused to mate either on the premises or entirely ----possibly due to living with a strong dog who is also used for breeding.
OTOH I have known groups where it has not been a problem. Usually kennelled dogs rather than all really living together.
I am aware that it could be down to other factors----but it is a consideration.
rune
|
|