Originally Posted by yllek
I guess I'm just trying to make a case that we don't have to look at our dogs through the lens of dominance/alpha/pack theory, and perhaps if we didn't, we might understand them better.
Well, you could stop by lumping dominance in with pack theory, because dominance is a drop in the bucket of canine behavior and has no place in every-day training as far as I'm concerned. People should also concentrate on training dogs TO do specific tasks, instead of relying on corrections. However, you'll never convince me that referring to basic pack theory is useless as a tool in an arsenal of experience.
I think the single biggest disservice people to do dogs and training, and you've been guilty of it more than anyone on this thread, is constantly coming back to dominance. Dominance as a diagnosis, trait, vice, theory or what have you has been, in my experience, a long outdated fall back for a lack of knowledge in canine behavior. And in the circle of trainers I know of, when someone pipes up with the notion that a dog is "dominant", we refer to a list of books as long as my arm to refresh their brain on the umpteen other things to look at first
. Pack theory/alpha techniques do not equate to dominance theories, and yet you've used the terms interchangeably in this thread which is erroneous in and of itself.
You want to talk about "just training the dog". Ok. Let's talk about that for a second, and then I'll explain how that comes back to survival in the eyes of a dog.
Forget pack mentality, alpha methods, crate training, and all of that. Are you familiar with Pavlov's research of respondent and operant conditioning (which is pretty much the invention of the wheel in terms of clicker training)? How he used the metronome as an association to food proving that using a neutral stimulus and a natural reflex (or unconditioned response) can be used to teach via association?
With this method and little more than a scrap of food and the snap of your fingers you can basically teach almost anything. No alpha theories, waiting at doors, crate training, nothing.
Well, this is based on the idea that there are two things a dog will respond to unconditionally (the "unconditional response") - pain, and food. Obviously using pain is not a good thing, so we'll focus on food.
Using the natural response to food, the unconditioned response set up by nature (drooling when offered food) he was able to teach the dogs to associate the sound of a metronome to the impending treat of food.
Why do you suppose this is? Why does food have such a powerful response? Survival, perhaps? Look at the place food has within a pack structure and how the use of food as rewards is related and think about how far removed "just teaching the dog" is from a basic alpha theory. Not very. Of course, if you completely dismiss the idea that dogs live in packs and have structural hierarchy relationships this will be difficult.
Ah but, you don't use food as a reward! When the natural stimulus becomes unconditional (like the dogs drooling at the sound of the metronome when they previously had no reaction to it), it becomes easier to switch the focus to a new a unconditioned response, like say, a tennis ball instead of food. It's even been suggested this is easier in domesticated dogs, especially "old" breeds (in other words, not primitive breeds that haven't been cohabiting with humans for long). It's the emotion, the reflex
, behind the actions that drive the dog. This is due the dog's innate desire to seek out food above all else (else being companionship and approval, all of which are observed in pack situations).
To a dog, no food means death. The single biggest threat to a dog in my house (I have three dogs) is feeding one of them last. This can also be demonstrated by taking a dog who is not food motivated and putting him in a group of other dogs and watching him eat chips of ice before they hit floor simply so the other dogs don't eat them first. It's not even food
, but it's the survival mechanisms telling him he must get it first.
This is why food, food association, and other unconditional responses to items (when unrelated to food is stronger in some breeds more than others, like retrievers wanting to chase a dummy) is such a HUGE motivator for training.
So yeah, you can "just train the dog", but think of the action of teaching, especially through association, and how it correlates to dogs in packs. We know dogs hunt together. We know dogs have a pre-designated order in which pack members get fed. We know loner dogs have a much different diet from dogs in a pack. And lastly, we know loner dogs have a lower survival rate. There is motivation to remain where food is at an advantage, which is with other dogs. (Notice none of this relates to "dominating"?)
What does that mean for dogs not living where food is at an advantage? A lower survival
rate. So when Pavlov took food and was able to get the dogs to associate the sound of a metronome with impending food treats, he tapped into their innate desire to hone in on the single biggest chance of survival, and voilà, cue attention! It's a trainers gold mine.. or at least until the advent of dominance theories, which thankfully in the timeline of dogs and humans living together, has been short lived. Or at least I hope so.