I have long been used to using critical analysis in various areas, it gets to be a habit

I find it essential for learning as it is about this sorting of what is good from what is bad, or else one merely uncritically picks up someone else's ideas, based on their presentation, beliefs, ethics and experiences rather than one's own.

I have experienced things I have know other sources deny ever happen (including forced alpha rolls and pin downs by dogs and no that doesn't mean I support people using those methods), which in turn influences interpretation of behaviour, e.g. IME pawing can be anything but submissive at times, but I known my own experiences were genuine, and seen by me in context not isolation, albeit others may not have come across the same things in the same situations.

Unfortunately there is often a catch 22 whereby one needs knowledge to evaluate information and one needs information (seen, read or experienced), to gain knowledge. However I diverge.

I have no problem with any source of good information hence explaining that I do think there is merit to that clip as with others, so long as critically analysed.
However I don't have "sacred cows" or ascribe to a "gospel" of beliefs or politics nor assume something is automatically unconditionally good if from particular sources, nor do I automatically assume something is all bad if it comes from another particular source, whatever the topic, as some people for example will unconditionally accept anything stated by one political party and automatically reject anything stated by an opposing political party.

I very rarely use U tube, unless someone points me to something and even then I don't always follow links, but you could try looking at the Joel Silverman (see my previous post) u tube stuff to see if that is any good.

I think my point is maybe that one can't expect to learn too well from anything that has been edited, for the reasons I have already given. To use a cliche, a little knowledge, i.e. an edited version of events, can be a dangerous thing.

I got a certain impression of Monty Roberts when I saw 5 minutes. When you watch a lot more, unedited, you see a lot more, and in some ways a lot less (i.e. stuff that many other people had been using quietly for a long time) going on.

Personally I would say CM does DS at times albeit quite rapidly, even if not CC, e.g when he gradually introduces more challenging dogs and reduces distances, although arguably in some cases if you DS, CC comes with it due to reduced adrenaline and reactivity. I suspect a fair bit of the DS he does do isn't shown as a gradual change is obviously less dramatic and impressive than a sudden one.

Likewise I am sure some of those things VS's programmes shown as working instantly took a bit longer, like the two Yorkies belonging to Bruce Forsythe's daughter instantly stopping barking at the door the first second she told them to.

They always say that the devil is in the detail and the devil of TV programmes, video clips etc is the editing, or, worse still the running commentary that guides the thinking to whatever those doing the editing want you to believe.

It's always a good idea to watch first without sound. Very often what is actually happening is very different to what the commentary would have you believe.

Of course, there wouldn't be TV programmes about dog training if it was shown in real time. It would be very, very boring to watch . A single behavioural consultation can take between two to four hours. Lots of chatting with owners, lots of play breaks for the dog and lots of very basic training thrown in with the rehab programme. At the end of the session, there is some improvement, but the major improvements come after the session is over when the owners take over the rehab role with their new-found knowledge. Hence selected highlights are shown and here comes the problem. Those selected highlights are selected more for entertainment value (in the case of tv) and to show exactly what the editor wants the audience to believe (both TV and promotional videos).

Taking all this aside, no matter what video is being analysed, there will be differing interpretations of what is being shown. There will also be a lot of conjecture about what has ended up on the cutting room floor

Absolutely. You are also right about people being amazingly swayed by commentaries and that also applies to commentaries.

One person's calm dog is another person's shut down/learned helplessness dog. One person's excitable, reactive dog is another person vicious, dangerous dog. One person's submissive/calming gesture is someone else's attention seeking/dominant gesture.

So many things are not right or wrong, true or false but differing opinions. However these opinions, on both sides, are often presented as fact frequently backed up by the written word.

Even with peer reviewed scientific papers the results can be very different if someone else looks at them and re-analyses the results and the methods used.

Also the reviewing peers are much more likely to accept papers "proving" their own views and work than those "disproving" it.

Funding sources for research are also affected by vested interests e.g there is much more funding available to "prove" man-made global warning than to disprove it.

That is before you get into people misquoting papers, cherry-picking out-of-context quotes (seen that a lot, e.g Mech's more recent comments on Alpha wolves), quoting other people's interpretation of papers (leading to "Chinese whispers") without reading them first hand, just looking at the abstract which, being a summary, misses a lot of the important detail of the whole paper, etc, etc!

Taking information entirely on trust, without checking it in as much detail as possible first hand can be very misleading, but much less time and effort than going back to the original source, reading and analysing when there can be some very interesting and but hard won surprises.

WhichPets, I've found another video (awaiting Tass' critique ).

I think what is interesting is that of course, if CM was dealing with this dog, he'd probably have it really snarling and at a state of heightened arousal, to get the excitement for TV, whereas Yin is doing the opposite.

It shows counter conditioning in process, with a dog who really hates people blowing at it.

http://drsophiayin.com/resources/vid...lowing_in_face

Wys
x

Critical analysis is useful and important at times , but one of the hard parts for everyone is to understand that the reasoning always begins with our own selves - our own beliefs and actions, biases perhaps; which can of course colour our own analysis - it's not as easy as it sounds!

To live in the world, we believe that some things are as they seem - they have to be, or we'd all probably go mad - and this probability requires trust. If one is able to analyse clearly the basis of what we suspect is true, then it's easier to discern when it is reasonable to be trusting, and when it's reasonable and useful to be sceptical.

So critical thinking is useful, but only as long as we are able to do a realistic self-appraisal also .

I think these things should be discussed, but I suspect general forums are not the best place to do so for a variety of reasons - one major one being trust in that one can be open to possible belief alterations/change of view/confirmation of thought without ridicule - this is unlikely on a public forum.

On the other hand when discussing with people one can trust (for whatever reason) there can be fully and totally open discussion, without fear of repercussion and it's both refreshing and constructive/instructive

Re the paw on the leg, context is always important.
It can be pushy behaviour for example, but IIRC in the CM particular show I was referring to, it most definitely was not this, it was the usual "it's dominance" from CM but no other possible thought in his mind that it could be anything else...

..

Wys
x

Well, I think most people tend to think about a topic, make a judgement based on various things - their beliefs, their ethics, life experience, learning etc, and then, certainly, they may end up having preferences, but usually those are for a reason to that particular person .

I don't think many are is blind in their views, or at least not all of the time? For example, I used to be an avid follower of Babs Woodhouse and later altered my views, .. More recently, I attended a seminar which was quite controversial in some ways even though people were generally of the same mind... Usually people tend to "gel" with others and then end up in some sort of peer group with similar values.

However, that should never preclude a good discussion and genuine examination of one's views now and then - nothing should stagnate, ideally .

Even with some of the arguments on here (for example, CM threads! ) although there is often the appearance of being entrenched, if there was enough good evidence to the contrary of one's view, allowing for cognitive dissonance, perhaps those same people would alter their view? Dunno, but I like to think so.
...
I agree to an extent, but I think the clip was useful for the OP because it did show that dogs do not have to be physically manhandled or whatever CM says is necessary, to improve and to be trained, and to move away from emotions that cause aggression.

I hope what peeps would say when looking at it would be "oh that's interesting, that dog is calm at the end, what is this DS/CC thing? No pinning the dog! Must find out more about it"

In which case it's made people think. Which is good, non?
I've not really been able to find any other clear, instructive Ds/CC videos on Youtube like this unfortunately, (dog-dog ones I mean) unless you count Grisha Stewart's BAT ones... I haven't had time yet to check out the Joel Silverman ones you suggested looking at in case there is something there, though.
...


Wys
x

That is certainly true

Wys
x

I may as well comment back on this as well whilst I am at it, before lunch

For me, a stooge dog is for assessment or for training/classical conditioning opportunities, this latter often being a "trained calm and non-reactive stooge dog" but yes, it can be a dog in the park...

So I am not sure the first dog in the video fulfils this critera, hence why I stated it was not really a stooge dog.

It's only a minor point, no-one cares really but IMO its presence initially was to show how Emmett reacted,(which was already known) so I'd not call that either an assessment or a training situation.

(so we will have to agree to disagree I expect ).

Of course another stooge can be the very well trained, calm Stuffie Dog

.....

Totally agree with your second paragraph above, how could it be otherwise?

When I said the vid. was not the same as dog training programmes on tv, I meant it's not trying to suggest that harsh methods are safe/easier which many of the others do ... due to their editing and CM wind up technniques behind the scenes suggesting that very aggressive dogs are "saved" by pinning, flooding etc. Plus inferences in the commentary that no-one else can help the dog.

I'm not saying that the Emmett vid. wasn't edited (which might colour an interpretration perhaps) or that there aren't unanswered questions about it.But at the end of the day it was only intended to be a "taster" which is what clips on Youtube are all about really.

Perhaps I'm not getting what I mean across very well here, however, I am trying

Coincidentally, I am in the process of videoing a group of 8 reactive dogs being rehabbed for a friend of mine. My first "filming" session was last week and there are to be 6 altogether. I am wondering how this could be put on to Youtube just for fun, and to be honest I think it would not be unlike all the others. So you'd have the dogs initially reacting, then you'd have the DS/CC and training such as LAT, Watch, parallel walking etc and then the end, which would show dogs who have responded well and with happy owners

Wys
x

This was done some time ago by Kay Laurence when Geert de Bolster, from Belgium was over, a specialist in aggression.

Thanks for this That was a really good video to show CC. Agreed that Cesar would have dealt with that much more stressfully. Would be REALLY interesting to compare 2 very similar cases - maybe Cesar will do a blowing one one day!
(I am still following but more observing )