exactly ...they do what works for them !

I don't agree, I know what you're saying and I accept that of course scientists will adapt, grow, change, but we do need to be very suspicious when someone denies what they saw, and denies their interpretation at the time of what they saw in such a radically different way to how they see and interpret now. Anyone can "make a mistake", have a change of view, but DM in my opinion is just ridiculous.

Absolutely! There is never a day that goes by when I don't learn something. Trouble is, as I get older, I then forget earlier stuff that I've learned!!

hmm,or is it just u dont want to hear it.......

Absolutely not, it would be a very boring world if one only wanted to hear what one wanted to hear.

My ears are always open ... and I will always listen. Whether I choose to accept or not, is my business and my right in a democratic world.

I just cannot accept DM's volte face as being pure and without any ulterior motive.

As we get more knowledgeable in a subject, we often change our first/early interpretations of what we observed or learned. A pretty basic example is that I once was terrified of dogs. It came from my mother who isn't particularly fond of them and when I was bitten at 4 years old, my beliefs became set - all dogs are dangerous!!!!

As I got older, met more dogs I learned that there were some very nice dogs around. As I got older still, I got my own dogs. Older still and I got hooked on dogs so much that I was a professional dog trainer/behaviourist and went on to get a degree in animal training and behaviour.

My views have certainly changed over the years as have my interpretations of what I see dogs do. The more I learn about how their brain and body works, the more I continually challenge my thoughts.

As in all things, the more you observe, the more you prove or disprove your own theories. If views didn't change the more we observed, that would be very strange/ridiculous indeed.

I don't for one minute believe that anyone who corrects their earlier beliefs has any other ulterior motive than that of explaining why their original beliefs may have been incorrect and what their current thinking is.

The problem he has had - which many people in this field have had trouble with
It when he first observed the wolves he was LOOKING for and expecting alpha behaviour

Everyone simply believed the work that had gone before and so were looking for domnance as the motivation for things
But they were never thinking of any other reasons for the bhaviour

he is not saying he didnt see what he seen - rather that his interpritation of what he saw was biased and simplistic

What he has done is very brave - he admited a mistake

Good post, again, Ben. This is how I see it too. It's not easy to find other reasons for behaviour when one is "trained" to see one particular way of doing things.

I really dont think there is any kind of ulterior motive, Gnasher - he is a true scientist and would not have one (and anyway what could it be? ).

I think he's very honest and simply saying it how he saw it, and now, sees it

Interpretation is everything and sometimes it is only possible to interpret correctly after continual openness and learning ....

Wys
x

i agree that dog hierarchy is fluid and not rigid. One leads in some things and another in another. But the idea that dogs do not try and dominate one another, i can not buy.

The studies done on wild wolves are interesting but irrelevant when comparing to CAPTIVE dog groups.

Studies done on CAPTIVE wolves have more relervance.

rune