Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
jealous dog
Options
Comments
-
-
-
MayoSalmon wrote: »
Dogs are social animals and have high ritualized displays of dominance and submission that are used to prevent conflict, it is primarily rituals of submission that keep peace and not always displays of dominance.
Any given dog may be dominant or submissive at any given time depending upon the situation. A problem I am seeing with some posters here is that the term dominance conveys some sort of sadist evilish that should never be mentioned.
Yep, all social animals use displays of body language to communicate with others of their species, dogs are no exception. Some displays are threatening, some are backing down, depending on the scenario, the individual dogs etc.
But to suggest that dogs use these threats and appeasement behaviours in order to climb a ladder of social hierarchy is where it all falls down for the "pack leader" argument. This is what's been disproven, that becoming pack leader, or climbing to any higher social standing, is categorically not what motivates or causes these behaviours in dogs. Being a social animal does not in any way mean that such an animal must live within a dominance hierarchy by the way. A dominance hierarchy is one way of maintaining order, it's just not one that's used by wolves or dogs.
People who rely on anecdote and supposition have long been misinterpreting these behaviours... They say that threatening/agonistic behaviours are displays of dominance to assist the dog in climbing the social ladder. They say that appeasement behaviours are a submissive dog abjectly accepting his lowly place in a pack. They continue to believe this despite the fact that the guy who initially proposed the idea that dogs live within a dominance hierarchy (David Mech... Look him up
) has long, long since retracted his theories. This is why the word "dominant" has become quite the hot potato, because it has been hijacked and misrepresented as a biological concept by pack theorists.
In fact, and I say "in fact" because this has been shown again and again in objective, unbiased, empirical scientific research, these threatening and appeasement behaviours are used in order to secure prized resources for each dog as an individual. For an individual dog, having a greater drive to protect a squeaky ball/food/sleeping spot/self/owner attention etc is certainly not the same thing as trying to ascend a social hierarchy. It's just not that complicated.
Similarly, behavioural scientists have tested dogs to measure whether supporting them in these perceived apparent dominance hierarchies bears any relation to the exhibiting of threatening ("dominant") or appeasing ("submissive") behaviours. It might come as no surprise that the answer to this was a resounding "no".
As for dogs being pack animals, I think I've waxed lyrical enough about that and how the concept is completely rejected by scientific analyses... So... If a dog is not a pack animal... Why would he have any concept of a "pack leader"? I've said it many times... How anyone seriously believes that we could live in any sort of harmony with an animal that has aspirations to dominate us socially is beyond me. It would be a nightmare across the board. You certainly wouldn't fondly refer to the animal as a "pet"!0 -
-
MayoSalmon wrote: »
Thanks for those. Though the second link pretty much says what I said in my last post, as it's not really supporting the concept of dogs being motivated to become "pack leader", rather that it's a one-to-one relationship between individuals.
And in the first paper from Vienna, they are also describing linear one-to-one relationships, which as some of the links I posted yesterday say, a "dominant/submissive relationship" between two individual dogs (or dog to human) is absolutely normal... "dominance" is more accurately a descriptor of a two-way relationship, not a frame of mind. See my post above for why "dominance" is a misrepresented concept and as a result, a bit of a hot potato as a word!). But even in what you've linked, it does not denote a desire in dogs to ascend a social hierarchy... Which seems to me to be where the pack-theorists' confusion lies.
For the record, and bear with me here, I did a bit of research and study with those researchers in Vienna and other labs they're associated with. We tested amongst other things, the dog opening the plastic box test in which Monique Udell (the American researcher quoted in the first article) said in her tests, dogs couldn't do without instruction.
In contrast, we found that this very much relied on the individual dog, and that the "independent" breeds such as terriers, huskies, hounds etc were quite adept at opening the boxes with speed and without any human interference. Indeed, even with co-operative breeds such as herders and gundogs, they were also good at opening the boxes without direction... The ones that wouldn't open the boxes without direction were the trained dogs that had learned to seek the go-ahead from their owners!
So... That's the thing about research, replicate the experiment and if you get a match, you're heading down the path of proof. But there have been countless, countless times when the researchers in Vienna have come up with X result in an experiment, only for it not to be replicated by Udell in America, and other researchers worldwide. And vice versa. The ongoing tete-a-tete between these labs is a source of bemusement amongst other researchers, but it goes to show that for research to be accepted, it's gotta be reliably replicate-able. Both "sides" who you quote there are often criticised for their tendency to go for shock headlines, again to the bemusement of other researchers. So there... A bit of "inside track" info for ya
So whilst I think your first link is certainly interesting, at the moment it's a bit of an outlier until it is replicated again in another lab... And it certainly flies in the face of the oodles of established research I linked to yesterday... For now at least
0 -
Advertisement
-
Thanks for those. Though the second link pretty much says what I said in my last post, as it's not really supporting the concept of dogs being motivated to become "pack leader", rather that it's a one-to-one relationship between individuals.
And in the first paper from Vienna, they are also describing linear one-to-one relationships, which as some of the links I posted yesterday say, a "dominant/submissive relationship" between two individual dogs (or dog to human) is absolutely normal... "dominance" is more accurately a descriptor of a two-way relationship, not a frame of mind. See my post above for why "dominance" is a misrepresented concept and as a result, a bit of a hot potato as a word!). But even in what you've linked, it does not denote a desire in dogs to ascend a social hierarchy... Which seems to me to be where the pack-theorists' confusion lies.
For the record, and bear with me here, I did a bit of research and study with those researchers in Vienna and other labs they're associated with. We tested amongst other things, the dog opening the plastic box test in which Monique Udell (the American researcher quoted in the first article) said in her tests, dogs couldn't do without instruction.
In contrast, we found that this very much relied on the individual dog, and that the "independent" breeds such as terriers, huskies, hounds etc were quite adept at opening the boxes with speed and without any human interference. Indeed, even with co-operative breeds such as herders and gundogs, they were also good at opening the boxes without direction... The ones that wouldn't open the boxes without direction were the trained dogs that had learned to seek the go-ahead from their owners!
So... That's the thing about research, replicate the experiment and if you get a match, you're heading down the path of proof. But there have been countless, countless times when the researchers in Vienna have come up with X result in an experiment, only for it not to be replicated by Udell in America, and other researchers worldwide. And vice versa. The ongoing tete-a-tete between these labs is a source of bemusement amongst other researchers, but it goes to show that for research to be accepted, it's gotta be reliably replicate-able. Both "sides" who you quote there are often criticised for their tendency to go for shock headlines, again to the bemusement of other researchers. So there... A bit of "inside track" info for ya
So whilst I think your first link is certainly interesting, at the moment it's a bit of an outlier until it is replicated again in another lab... And it certainly flies in the face of the oodles of established research I linked to yesterday... For now at least
Theres plenty more studies of which you can try discredit all you want
http://dogspies.com/Dog_Spies/Science!_files/CSF%202012%20Abstracts.pdf
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/84470/rkt_1.pdf?sequence=1
While I agree Dog behavior is a very complex subject the issue of Hierarchical dominance in dogs is a fact and anybody with a pack of dogs would be well witnessed in that.
You seem to think nobody can call their dog a "pet" if he/she see's me as this dominant powerful human being some sort of emotional tyranny to his life.
When we think of dominance-based relationship, we tend to think of high-ranking animals routinely showing their power and strength to the lower ranking animals to reinforce their status. In reality, dominant relationships are primarily established by low ranking individuals showing formal submissive signals to high-ranking animals, in recognition of their supremacy. Ears behind the head, lay down exposing the belly, excessive licking all submissive behaviors.0 -
MayoSalmon wrote: »Theres plenty more studies of which you can try discredit all you want
With all due respect, I'm not trying to discredit, merely being objective and putting it to you that (a) the research is actually saying what you think it's saying, and (b) it's important that the research has itself been consolidated, which isn't yet the case with what you've posted, but is the case with what I've posted.While I agree Dog behavior is a very complex subject the issue of Hierarchical dominance in dogs is a fact and anybody with a pack of dogs would be well witnessed in that.
But it's not. You have misunderstood what the research says, even the research you posted earlier, and you've misunderstood what I've said. Your own observations have been with a strong bias towards what you believe, but would be pulled apart if you spent time with a behavioural scientists who is looking at interactions with a research-led eye.You seem to think nobody can call their dog a "pet" if he/she see's me as this dominant powerful human being some sort of emotional tyranny to his life.
With respect, nowhere have I said anything of the sort and again you have utterly twisted what has actually been said. Please don't put words in my mouth 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement