Re the problem with the word parsimonious

James O' Heare is using it correctly. In science, it means very roughly that one should choose the very simplest explanation of a behaviour. This is the "parsimonious" way. It is also known as Occam's Razor.

So basically J. is saying that he doesn't feel that dominance theory is the best description of interactions etc because it is not following this "law".

This is from Wiki, but quite a good example (not dog related):

Zoology provides an example. Muskoxen, when threatened by wolves, will form a circle with the males on the outside and the females and young on the inside. This as an example of a behavior by the males that seems to be altruistic. The behavior is disadvantageous to them individually, but beneficial to the group as a whole and was thus seen by some to support the group selection theory.

However, a much better explanation immediately offers itself once one considers that natural selection works on genes. If the male musk ox runs off, leaving his offspring to the wolves, his genes will not be propagated. If however he takes up the fight his genes will live on in his offspring. And thus the "stay-and-fight" gene prevails. This is an example of kin selection. An underlying general principle thus offers a much simpler explanation, without retreating to special principles as group selection.

A couple of dog examples:
http://animalbehaviorassociates.com/...its-important/

It does make a lot of sense...however as with many things, it has its limitations.

Wys
x

I think that personality does have a heck of a lot to do with it

Wys
x

So in plain english ( why is that so rarely used? ) he means the simplest explanation, in this case kin altruism- longer term preservation of the genetic future of the individual outweights shorter term survival of the individual itself.

However to me dominance theory and hierarchy, as I apply it and as I understand it is parismonious:

It means each individual uses what it has (i.e. it's influence/ability to control outcome/dominance by various strategies), including learning , to its best advantage to reach its position of greatest comfort (be that psychological and/or physical), which inevitably included reaching an agreement ("consensus") whereby it is in least conflict with other individuals its environment.

Dominance theory and/hierarchy accounts then for all the procedures involved in getting to that point (experience, personality, learning, association etc, etc) in one neat, simple explanation.

Sorry but as far as I can see this dominance and hierarchy is still exactly what is being described in Alexander's "different height fitness hills" etc, in the "pair-wise learning" as to who is most likely to win encounters in the Bristol paper leading to future expectations and deferences, or James O' Heare's far-from-parsimonious explanations of various potentially complexly interwoven and interacting assorted learning systems and theories, genetics (which contribute to temperament) and physiological processes etc.

Which brings us back round to Scott and Fuller also, rightly imo, describing these self-same situations, behaviours, interacts ad outcomes as establishing rank and dominance in pair-wise tests, although they also looked at larger group interactions.

Due to numbers, costs and time, they spent several years on the project, this level of study, to this detail, is highly unlikely to ever be repeated and should be honoured for the massive contribution it made to understanding dog behaviour. Not least in terms of socialisation periods and controlled but differing rearing environments.

It was also conducted without the increasing current bias of political agenda intent on increasingly viewing dogs as peace loving pacifists. Some are, some aren't, as with humans.

I have books on dogs dating back to the late 1880’s and some of the training techniques used back then are still around today. I’m not just talking about “positive punishers” but reward based methods we think of as quite modern.

I sometimes wonder if we focus too much on trying to explain behaviour. The “truth” as to what drives individual dogs to behave as they do is elusive and much like peeling an onion. There may be deeper meaning as you remove each layer or there may just be more tears!

I know trainers who don’t have the first clue about the theoretical origins of behaviour but they are very perceptive in knowing what will work with any given dog. We must not lose sight of the craft of dog training as we delve deeper into the science.

That is not only funny, but very true

It s also true that learning theory doesn't change and in its most simplistic from it is still about "the carrot and the stick", although over time what constitutes the carrot and the stick, and how each is applied may change.

Yes, I think I said in the "Are good trainers made..." thread that I consider it is an art as well as a science and, as you rightly say, some trainers are great artists, without ever studying the science. However I don't think a scientist without any artistry, or "feel" in it could really excel.

It is that "intuition", which is probably actually about reading the dog, whereby you need to constantly assess and reassess if you should follow through or insist on something, give the dog extra assistance, or give it time and space to work it out for itself

Sorry, I don't get this. How is a term parsimonious?

Wys: Hopefully now explained


...

James O' Heare: 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?

Tass: Because it does so very well?

Wys: Dominance theory in relation to domestic dogs has been rather a hotch potch - does it refer to linear or non linear hierarchy, any hierarchy at all; does it refer to reproductive status; is it right to apply wolf stuff to dogs and if not why; why was wolf stuff applied to dogs in the first place; is it about aggression, because it used to be equated with that; is it about rank or individual status or pecking orders or RHP or winning (or losing) ... a team of losers can defeat a winner and add great complexity ... mostly it is confusing; what about dog-dogs and then what does that say about dogs-humans and would that even be helpful ... I dont think it helps at all.

I think it's confusing when applied to the domestic dog, and we still have a lot to learn about it when applied to dogs. Hence we have to keep an open mind about it. It's probably best kept to ethology (in my opinion, so far; unless as J. O' Heare said, it is properly studied and properly understood and then perhaps it might offer something predictive, useful, etc

Tass; 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.

Wys: I'd disagree; dominance can't be more parsimonious and is not the only way to describe what occurs in social relationships... however you have a right to your opinion, as do we all

Wys: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.

Tass: 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: I am familiar, but I think it would be interesting to see more research on that, too.

Incidentally, although for some reason most peeps tend to remember Stephen Wicken's name, Goodwin and Bradshaw were also authors of the study - this is the same John Bradshaw who wrote "In Defence of Dogs"

What pretty colours


Wys
x

This is quite useful. It's pretty much the up to date view in science.

http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/why-not-dominance.php

Where did ‘Dominance Theory’ Come From?

Firstly, it is worth considering where the concept of ‘dominance’ originally came from, as this helps to explain the background to the debate on its current usage.

The concept of dominance is a historically well established one within the field of ethology, the study of the natural behaviour of animals. It was used to describe relationships between individuals, where one of a pair of animals is observed to obtain an important resource in a competitive situation.

However, over time the problem of using this concept in more complex animals became apparent, because such relationships were not always consistent in different situations. In other words, although animal A may be more likely to win an encounter over one resource, animal B may do so over another.

Furthermore, in social species, other factors appeared to be influential in the outcome of an interaction over a single resource – for example the outcome of competition over food varying with how hungry each animal was.

The ability to identify and learn about particular signals that might predict how others are likely to behave in different situations makes predicting the ‘outcome’ of an encounter between two individuals even more difficult.

‘Dominance’, therefore, seemed to be a too simplistic way of describing the interaction between social mammals, and in ethology much more complex models are now used to describe social groupings (e.g. Van Doorn et al. 2003).

Wys
x

What I was kind of getting to though was that if a dog is not being dominant (controlling) with that certain dog and its displacement, well they still are dominant around that dog whatever the reason. The are still having a huge influence and are being controlling to that dog surely?

Also, they are controlled enough to contain that 'reaction' even for days and stay 'cool' until they see the one dog they 'aim for'? and yet they are releasing stress from a situation maybe 48 hours ago....

Isn't that presuming that they think like people? not dogs?

Just wondering....y'know...

but what if you use the word to describe one interaction...not 'the whole dog' or the whole social grouping.....?

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this Wys or I will be suffering from repetitive strain injuries from typing

Regrettable, particularly within certain behaviourist schools of thought, I think the problem is with how dominance has been misdefined and misunderstood.

Personally I have no problem with accepting that it depends on the balance of a number of variables, but that is a consistency in itself, i.e. it is about how the "balance of power" between the participants works out, and all the factors that influence that.

Part of the interest of this theory to me is the many nuances of it. It would be pretty boring if it was all black and white.

So imo we should not reject the term but be looking for a better definition, with the zoology understanding being much more appropriate than behaviourist one, but then I find behavioural scientists often deny what many pet owners have extensively experienced to be true, in various areas.

Stephen Wickens did his PhD doctorate on the neotonistic phenotype:agonistic signalling question, it was his own presentation of his work that I was referring to.

This is a v interesting thread

Tass, can I ask what you would like the term dominance to mean?

I was just thinking of other places we use the word dominance and how we could or could not use that in dog behaviour terms


Like dominant gene - if its there it is the one that takes over
Dominant hand - the one you use for preference for tasks like writing

Personaly I would prefer to not use the term at all because of what it brings to most peoples minds
But is there a definition we can agree on?

Like Im happy to say a person is dominating a conversation - so possibly could say a dog is dominating a situation - but I would never say the person IS dominant - so I would never say a dog is dominant
if that makes sense