Yes, true. Dominance theory also actually started on invertebrates - bees and was then later applied to vertebrates.

It was meant to help an understanding of social living, but instead the scientists found that it tended to complicate and needed revisiting, reviewing, etc.

Wys
x

For some dogs in some situations the NILIF system works brilliantly.

rune

I'm not with you Rune, sorry?
Do you mean it'd not work if there was no such thing as dominance between dogs? Or I guess dog/human?

Wys
x

I find this depends on the scientists and which discipline they are coming from . IME it is often an outlook and attitude split between ethologists/zoologists and behaviourists.

IME ethologists have no problem with it, and interpret it much more flexibly and therefore much more accurately than behaviourists, not least as they don't get into the politics that have become connected with it in behaviourist/training circles.

Even Mech, contrary to what is often stated, does not now reject the "alpha" term for wolves, but says it is overused and misapplied, although there are still times it can be correctly applied but in those circumstances "dominant" could be used in place of "Alpha".

This to me sums it up very well and certain accurately reflects my view of dominance theory. Unfortunately I forget it's origin :


"In Zoology, dominance is defined as priority control of limited resources (food, shelter, place, water, mates). It doesn't necessarily mean aggressive or even assertive behavior. The dominant animal will only assert rank if it wants the limited resource, but will not assert rank if it doesn't care about the resource. And if resources are plentiful, there may never be aggression.

In field studies, the dominant animal is usually the least likely to be aggressive. It's the second ranked and lower that are more likely to aggress, or the ones who are unsure of or too close in status. The least dominant, most subordinate also is the least likely to be involved in an altercation. The theory has been that, if one knows one's well-established place in the hierarchy, there's no need to fight. Fighting may occur with the dominant animal if another lower ranking animal tries to challenge that
senior rank, or if the dominant animal begins to age or becomes ill. "

Conversely this is the very much more rigid "Dominance theory" as proposed in the AVSAB position statement:
"Dominance is defined as a relationship between
individual animals that is established by
force/aggression and submission, to determine
who has priority access to multiple resources
such as food, preferred resting spots, and mates
(Bernstein 1981; Drews 1993). A dominancesubmissive
relationship does not exist until one
individual consistently submits or defers".

I have also heard it suggested that dominance theory means every individual is constantly and aggressively striving to be number one in all situations in linear "cast in stone" inflexible fashion.

This be impossible to maintain in a group of more than two, and incompatible with life as time has to be taken to sleep, eat, drink etc.

Also dominance is one aspect of a stable hierarchy, which functions to decrease aggression and so saves energy and reduces risk, and that, together with the synergy of group/pack living, requires the greater number of group members to be more or less submissive individuals who are happy not to be striving to be number one.

I.e some are natural leaders, some are opportunists, other prefer to be followers etc, indeed as in human society.

So yes, I believe in pack theory and dominance theory, but not as they are presented and decried in behaviourist circles.

It seems to me that the problem is that Dominance theory has been incorrectly understood in some circles, hence inaccurately defined and thus, in that guise, correctly rejected and disputed.

Excellent post---I am not prepared to say something doesn't exist simply because people don't understand the word.

Thats mad IMO.

Better to re-educate.

rune

As I understand it, dogs do not have a stable hierarchy. I thought studies had shown that the structure is flexible in street dogs?
Until there are proper studies of dogs in a domestic environment, i would hesitate to accept any theory tbh. I prefer to go with my own observations of my own dogs.

I agree totaly
It is very difficult to study dogs properly because a dogs natural environment is with man
and how we treat the dogs impacts on how they behave
Also its impossible to really do an independent study because everyone will have their beliefs and these will colour their observations - if you believe in dominance you will see it - but that dosent mean it is really there - and vice versa

To clarify my stance
Of course in all groups there are people more likely to lead, more likely to follow, more confident, more shy, more likely to be agressive - and this also depends on the environment and history as well
a shy person can be coached to be more confident
a pushy person may take a back seat when they get fed up of leading

I dont think it is important to study and find who is and isnt dom because no person/animal is dom in all situations
as most people have said here nothing is linear

I think more useful and interesting is to see the huge mixture of personalities and coping strategies

and with our pet dogs decide if we like the behaviour they are showing in that situation and if not then train something different

Slightly OT, but I can't help but notice that a few people have a problem with applying wolf based research to domestic dogs. Personally, I see no reason whatsoever why wolf based research can't be used as a basis for forming an understanding of domestic dogs. After all, they are VERY closely related in terms of physiology and more than likely a lot of psychology. Based on the fact that the species and sub species (Canis Lupus and Canis Lupus Familiaris) can still breed and produce fertile offspring, there must be a great deal of correlation in behaviour etc. Obviously not 100 or even 90% but...

Is it really hard to be as obnoxious as you are? I haven't got the time to troll through thousands of posts on Dogsey on the offchance that it was your good self, or not, who mocked Shaun Ellis's classifications for the different ranks in a wolf pack. I could have sworn you were one of the dissenters, but wasn't sure hence my cautiousness and apologies in advance.

No need whatsoever for such rudeness.

I find it offensive that twice you have wrongly attributed opinions to me that are actually the opposite of what I believe---both times done with what could be called offensive posts.

If you haven't got the time to check at least have the decency to ask rather than jumping in with both feet and getting it wrong.

At the risk of boring everyone else this what you wrote

I am so totally stunned by your posting Rune for once words fail me!!

Are you the same Rune who poo pooed Shaun Ellis's descriptions of various "ranks" - such as the diffuser - brilliantly described by yourself above.

Your final paragraph is absolutely spot on!! What has caused this massive volte face may I ask?

I don't see any kind of 'apology in advance in it.

rune