I don't breed but would have to say No, unless for some reason I met them and was sure the pup would have a fab life. But the idea of, if any behaviour problems cropped up the owners might try an alpha roll or similar - I'd not want any pup exposed to that.

Yes - I think there is some confusion about what it actually is. We had an example earlier of dogs telling other dogs off but that was not in any way learned helplessness.

Succeeding in stopping a living creature from doing something it wants to is not learned helplessness, especially if that animal is also learning what other behaviour to do in place of the original behaviour.

Just going back a moment to the dominance/alpha etc view CM holds...I mentioned earlier that we know that the view is based on flawed science, as the original studies were done on domestic packs of wolves (not even dogs) and this in itself led to conclusions which, although came out as influential, were not how a wolf pack "works" or lives.

Similarly, work done on dog packs or families shows they can have a very relaxed structure overall. Dogs who are too much of a bully tend to get ousted .

I also mentioned that the idea of humans being alpha had become a "meme" - as many things do in our society - here's info on what a meme is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

basically a unit of cultural evolution, similar to a gene.

With this info, why do some folk agree with dog trainers who continue to perpetuate the myth of "dominance" "alpha leader" etc.

Some people may have attempted to be an alpha leader and feel it works - but why is it working? is it because of boundaries etc rather than because of actually the whole "alpha" thing as such?

I'm genuinely interested as to why the info, which does take time to get passed down to ordinary people like ourselves from the science bods, is taken notice of when it suits us, and ignored when it suits us?

I know the answer is partly "because alpha/dominance etc is now a meme" but ...why can't we simply accept newer more up to date evidence about the way dogs live?

Part of the reason i suspect is that there were some very influential writers around who tended to give training advice stemming around being pack leader such as the Monks of New Skete who advocated alpha rolls for pet owners (and who since did change their minds).

Anyone got any views on it?
I do think it's very much related to the whole CM interest.

.

Well it's not about Alpha and Dominance it's about Balance and Leadership.
While many get bogged down with the word pack, if you substitute the word Group would that make a diffence?

Id have to think very carefully about selling to somebody if they were adamant anti CM. Id, of course ask them what methods they did intend using and take on board their experience with dogs on the whole. Border Terriers are not easy dogs, and if let get away with stuff will quickly take over, this is where I have found the CM effective, particularly with this latest male I have. Id take each person as they came and assess them individually, as I would any Dog.
Dawn.

I'd agree with what trouble says. My feeling is that most training methods work along similar lines:

- Give the dog plenty of exercise and stimulation.
- Give the dog rules and boundaries.
- Let it know that you're boss and what you say goes.
- Reward good behaviour with treats/affection/play
- Discourage bad behaviour by not rewarding it or by associating it with unpleasant things (so for example, nasty tasting stuff on things they shouldn't chew, dog pulls on lead change direction, loud noise to distract them from savaging your toes everytime you walk past).

People use all sorts of theories and visualisations to explain why the methods work - from pack dynamics to becoming the dog's prey to simply making your dog love you so much that it does everything you ask. As far as I can gather there is no clear evidence to say for sure who is right. In all liklihood ALL are probably partly right and partly wrong. CM's strength seems to be that he's given people a visualisation that lets them give out the right vibes and have the dogs accept their authority without a fight.

Wysisyg - getting back to the question of 'learned helplessness'. The quote I gave from the book by Geoff Thompson about learned helplessness was just an example of conditioning. An I believe ALL training methods use an element of this. If you take the more sinister definition where it's about controlling though fear of punishment then I don't think CM is guilty of this. Even the shock collar - according to MANY sources this is just a distraction to make the undesireable activity less pleasureable. Not punishment. Now last year the Government investigated this issue and made the ruling that there were conflicting views from experts and no studies that showed any cruelty. They plan to initiate studies, but at this stage have ruled that there is nor reason to ban them or control their usage.

But thank you

Wys, I see you've answered my response to your post on a different thread You're right, it's probably more on topic here. I'll repeat some of my points here as your post is very similar to a reply from spettadog.....


This doesn't make the original studies flawed science.... it just makes it what it is - data on a captive pack. Yes, animals do behave differently in a captive situation... but are our dogs not also captive?

Wild packs are said to have a more fluid hierachy, but that doesn't mean that there is no hierarchy. There is still the alpha pair and in times of conflict they will exert authority in a very similar way to a captive alpha.

My experience of keeping dogs together echos the findings in that an unrelated pack is less likely to be stable. There is greater liklihood of a harmonious pack when it consist of a family group. Introducing an outside dog, even when brought in as a young puppy, does cause conflict.

Compared to a stable pack in a normal household situation.... there is no need for the owner to constantly reinforce alpha position by eating first, not allowing dogs on furniture, going through doorways first etc. A confident, assertive demeanor is all that's required to establish dominance and the dogs know they can lie on the sofa .....etc, with the owner's permission. This is more akin to the stable, wild pack situation where the alpha wolf also doesn't need to 'bully' the rest of the pack into submission. He rules with quiet assertiveness.

Could I ask Wys... what do you think would be so different if the initial studies had been conducted on wild wolf packs?


There's an interesting report on dog pack hierachy here -
http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti...ierarchies.htm

Unfortunately it doesn't give information on the breeds involved and I think what is often forgotten is that selective breeding over thousands of years has been based primarily on temperament and this has produced a huge variation among the breeds. There are some that probably could no longer live in a pack situation as described in the link.


I think it was he other thread you mentioned this


The info on the wiki link?

I haven't read it but the original source for this idea is Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene and it isn't suggested as an incorrect or flawed concept.

You could equally say 'positive training' is a meme.

Boundaries are set by leaders/alphas so yes and no... you have to be in alpha position to set the boundaries.


I know I keep asking this question Wys, but can you say what information exactly is being ignored.


I know there was a change in thinking on the alpha roll.... quite sensibly IMO! But not pack theory... was there?

you are talking about operant conditioning.. learned helplessness requires unavoidable punishment, for example routinely kicking a dog as you walk it down a street, whether it is doing right or wrong. learned helplessness isn't about controlling through fear of punishment, it is just merely a condition in which the animal "shuts down" and is helpless.. there is nothing to do with training here, aside from training helplessness of course... i promise you are not practicing this!

Shaun Ellis, the Wolf Man, lived for several years with wild wolves in the States : see below:-

"In later years his determination and perseverance paid dividends when a chance encounter with a Native American biologist at a wolf seminar, allowed him to become a volunteer, he joined a project studying wolves at the foot of the Rocky Mountains in Idaho. During the day he worked with his fellow students under the guidance of the Nez Perce Native Americans and by night he observed alone.

It was while working here in up to 3 feet of snow, that Ellis realised that the best way to learn about wolves was to return to his childhood ways and live alongside them.

Believing that living alongside wolves is the best way to understand them Ellis immerses himself in wolf society. He lives and behaves like them – howling, licking and snarling – even eating and playing like the wolves. He has lived among captive wolf packs in England and spent seven years on the Nez Perce reservation in Idaho studying wolves. It was on the Nez Perce reservation that he first was able to get inside a pack of wolves and live among them."

I cut and pasted this from a website, just in case anyone tried to point out that Shaun only lives with captive wolves. He does, but he spent many years living with wild wolves in the States, where he eventually became the alpha wolf, a status which he lost when he went away, and returned some time later and had a very rude awakening when he tried to take up as alpha male again! According to Shaun at his lecture we attended last year down in Essex, everything that Cesar says about the importance of being alpha in your own "pack" is correct. If you are recognised as alpha male or alpha female, you are well on the way to establishing a well balanced, harmonious "pack". Our new dog has only been with us since Sunday evening, but already he recognises our status ... above him. He has stopped barging through doors, knocking us over in the process, we are well on the way to making him sit and wait for his food bowl to be placed on the floor, rather than knocking us over almost in his haste to get his nosh! He made the mistake of trying to snatch a chickenwing out of my hand the day before yesterday, but a loud "ah !" made him instantly sit and wait calmly ... with Hal's son, Woody sitting calmly too. Through this calm assertive behaviour, we are already turning a very nice but bumptious dog, into an even nicer well behaved, well mannered dog. He is MUCH easier to handle than Hal, it has to be admitted, but it is such a joy to see a dog respond so well and so quickly to such a simple method of training.

Now, one thing I am struggling with his recall ... back to me, not OH. If OH is with me, when I call him back, he comes back like a rocket ... but to OH, not me ! This means to me that he recogises Mike as the head of our household, which he is (I'm an old fashioned girl), but does anyone think there is another reason? Am I doing something wrong?