Victoria/Cesar stand off!!

[Cracker]

Here is where Missy May and I sit on opposite sides of the fence...
I do believe dogs have self awareness, not as developed as our own maybe but I do believe they do. Difficult thing to decide on really...what exactly is the definition of self awareness?

And yes I do believe they love and they feel and they suffer. I believe they have strong emotional lives...different than ours certainly as much of our emotions are linked inextricably to our intellect.

I do not believe that dogs have an "intrinsic desire to please" as some people do but do believe they can exhibit loyalty. Can't prove it. Can't necessarily quantify it. But then, most of us humans spend time in therapy as we have difficulty describing or dealing with our own emotions, mostly because our intellect gets in the way.

Our brains and theirs are very similar, only lacking a sizeable cerebral cortex, where logic/advanced reasoning and verbal ability are housed. They do not LACK a cerebral cortex, it is simply smaller. Some anthropologists believe our larger brain developed alongside our rudimentary beginning language. So just because dogs lack our verbal language ability, it does not stand to reason that they lack many other characteristics we have.

Paul.
All you have to do is look closely at another living being and be able to see reactions that would indicate suffering. If you can feel joy you can feel pain. Sometimes the signs are subtle. Just like some humans can hide their pain to most of the world, but the ones who know them best can see it.

Geez. All this existentialism. My poor little brain hurts. But I love it.

[Nettle]

I observe. Yes I have some quite qualifications, but my learning is from observation, and I am never afraid to swim against whichever tide is fashionable (I have never bought into the wolf pack or the dominance thing, for instance).

It does brass me off when I work something out slowly and painfully and then get a behaviour book and discover someone else has already reached the same conclusion and then written a book about it! but at least I know I agree with that concept because I have already unravelled it in my mind.

Here is what I have observed for the last few weeks vis a vis the mental workings of some dogs (I am unsure whether all people are capable of love either).

I am raising a litter of puppies, along with their birth mother. It is by no means my first litter but definitely my last. Four and a half weeks ago, these babes didn't even exist.

In the morning when I bring their food, they are ravenous. But they don't go straight to their food - they toddle over to me, wagging their tails, with every appearance of being pleased to see me. After they have eaten, they climb on my lap and snuggle against me, still wagging those tails, still giving every impression of enjoying my company.

That is their programming - to be friendly to humans.

It turns a knife in my heart to think of all those welcoming, trusting little souls who have offered themselves in such innocence and been betrayed by humanity.


I don't think dogs - or certainly not all breeds and not all individuals - have an inbuilt desire to please. I think "love" varies greatly from creature to creature, and indeed human to human. I am not at all sure that these tiny creatures "love" me, but they are prepared to trust - and there is no love without trust.

Different bitches rear differently, too. Some see diligently to the feeding and cleaning, but show no affection, while others are always cuddling and licking their babes.

I observe. It's fascinating.

[Missymay]

I certainly believe they feel and suffer (and feel joy).

Do I believe they love?? Hm....that's tough. Define love. I guess I don't, at least not as human's do.

I like to believe they do, but I am afraid that is just me projecting my love for them onto them.

If I were proven wrong on the love thing, I would not be upset at all. My kids are grown and raised and my dogs are my life. Even if they do not love me, I love them.

Self aware? I a pretty firm no on that.I do not believe dogs are self aware. Again, it would not bruise my ego to be proven wrong, but I don't think they recognize themselves as individuals nor do I believe they are aware of their own thought process.

As to reasoning, I think they have some reasoning ability, just not sto the extent that we do (I wrote in hubris).

Mattie, I don't think there is anything wrong with observing, but you follow your observations by seeking information.

[Doggie Python]

It does brass me off when I work something out slowly and painfully and then get a behaviour book and discover someone else has already reached the same conclusion and then written a book about it! but at least I know I agree with that concept because I have already unravelled it in my mind.

LOL! Now, this is funny because I'm just the opposite!

If through my own study, observations, and conclusions I bump into someone's comments or writings who has reached the same conclusions (independantly), and they describe it using their own words and experiences rather than parroting (verbatum) some one else's writings or thoughts, I get pretty excited!

Sure, we all have our influences and certain beliefs, but the many different perspectives are priceless.

I have to say, I've learned and shared more on dog boards and forums than any other venue. The internet is an amazing tool for discovery and the sharing of ideas.

Another big plus in connecting over the internet, is that every dog owner, trainer, walker, etc...is sharing their own personal observations and experiences with the dogs.

Once you cut through the opinions and emotions, you get some real in-the-field research by lot of independant "lay scientists". Much of it discussed honestly and openly.This is how I study success rates and learned how confusing the dog training world can be for the average (non dog nerd) owner.

I don't personally have a problem with the word "dominance". It has more than one meaning and can be overused, misused, and misrepresented. However, it's more appropriately studied and defined in it's scientific applications, not emotional ones.

Thanks for the great discussion. I'm also loving it!

[Mattie]

Mattie, I never hesitate to ask for more information. If I know anything, it is how little I know

And while Cesar does use simple words, his concepts rely on dominating and physical corrections. His entire philosphy relies on domination. Nervous dominance does not even make sense.

Yes, unfortunately the way he works with dogs the dogs suffer, but he is talking to the owners in a way they can understand so they continue with what he has told them. Many trainers talk in a way that owners don't understand so the owners give up.

I will ask questions Missymay up to a point, if all I am getting back is the same gobbledy gook that I have said I don't understand, then I stop asking.

The rest of this thread has gone over my head, I am completely baffled by it.

How do you know the dogs suffer?

Paul

How do you know they are not suffering?

[pro-ecollar]

Sorry been a busy week. 17 puppies to the vet for cerf today... I have had long and numerous debates with folks about the ability of dogs to both reason and feel emotions. Working with retrievers I do believe that dogs can 'reason" to some degree. Teaching them both right and wrong, I know its not allowed to talk about teaching them wrong only right here, is important in doing the level of work they do. I watch them every day make decisions in new situations that shows some reasoning ability based on understanding right/wrong or good/bad. I ask about suffering because it entails more than just "feeling pain" but has a level of cognitive ability beyond the physical.

Paul

[ckranz]

Dogs do not understand right from wrong. Dogs do not feel guilt. Dogs only understand that which gets them what they want or avoid discomfort.

Dogs feel happiness, they feal fear, anger, frustration, insecure, anxiety, contentment, but all these without any sense of morality.

[pro-ecollar]

Dogs do not understand right from wrong. Dogs do not feel guilt. Dogs only understand that which gets them what they want or avoid discomfort.

Dogs feel happiness, they feal fear, anger, frustration, insecure, anxiety, contentment, but all these without any sense of morality.

I respectfully disagree. We teach dogs right behavior and wrong behavior everyday. We then watch them made decisions based on their training of right and wrong everyday. Of course with an all positive method all you can teach is one side, because there is never a consequence for the wrong behavior.

Paul

[ckranz]

Dgs behave, it is we who put labels on by our definitions or right and wrong. To a dog there is no right or wrong in the moral sense. It was we who ate the apple not the dogs.


Dogs understand when they do certain things they get rewarded. This increases the probability that a specific behavior is repeated. The better the reward or the more frequent the reward schedule increases the probability to a posibility. Sustained repititions are accomplished by intermitten rewards with variable size rewards just like a slot machine.

To have moral sense would imply that dogs have guilt, which they don't. Dogs are better at reading us and in many cases where they "seem" guilty are merely attempting to appease us because of our demeanor upon the expectation of discovering something bad (like house soiling, chewing up a pillow, getting into trash etc...)

[Mattie]

Dogs do not understand right from wrong. Dogs do not feel guilt. Dogs only understand that which gets them what they want or avoid discomfort.

Dogs feel happiness, they feal fear, anger, frustration, insecure, anxiety, contentment, but all these without any sense of morality.

I respectfully disagree. We teach dogs right behavior and wrong behavior everyday. We then watch them made decisions based on their training of right and wrong everyday. Of course with an all positive method all you can teach is one side, because there is never a consequence for the wrong behavior.

Paul

You have just shown how ignorant you are over our methods of training dogs.

We teach our dogs not to take food off our plates, dogs don't know it is wrong, they do know that we don't allow it so they don't do it.

There are consequences for the wrong behaviour, dogs don't get rewarded when they do the wrong behaviour, they get rewarded when they do the right behaviour. As dogs love to be rewarded, they stop doing what they don't get rewarded for and do what we reward.

If your boss stopped paying your wagers, would you work as well for them? If your boss doubled your wages, would you try to work better? If there was an electric stim on your chair and every time your boss thought you were not doing what you should he activated it, how well would you work then?

[Cracker]

Paul.
Morality involves higher thinking and verbal/cognitive abilities that dogs, with their smaller and less developed cerebral cortex LIKELY do not have.

Positive training is not "purely positive" and certainly does involve consequences, your comment shows a lack of understanding of how R+ works. Most, if not all, R+ trainers also use P-. A consequence does not have to be physical (aversive) to still be a consequence.

Dogs learn what works. What works is what gets them a reward (be that food, play, walks, freedom, a chance to "work" etc). With aversives they DO learn...they learn to avoid the behaviours that they know will result in aversive (the behaviours that don't work) but they also learn that offering a new behaviour or something different because of changing stimulus MAY result in an aversive, so it can short change their ability to learn new things. Fear is not respect.

If you are going to participate in a positive training forum, it may be a good idea to have a better idea about what is IS. Many of use are crossover trainers and understand fully what you do, we used to do it ourselves. We have chosen otherwise through education and experience with the other methods.

Making assumptions based on lack of information simply bogs down the discussion.

[cindynok]

I respectfully disagree. We teach dogs right behavior and wrong behavior everyday. We then watch them made decisions based on their training of right and wrong everyday. Of course with an all positive method all you can teach is one side, because there is never a consequence for the wrong behavior.

You could easily replace the word "dog" with child or children.

I do not believe in physical punishment for my dogs, but if caught in the act I do let them know how displeased I am, verbally and with posture.
I prefer to reward and see behavior change to the positive. As the owner watch for signs I can see to help the dogs meet my standard for their behavior.

Although in all probablilty of lack of development of certin regions of the brain in canines equate to behaviors, thought process and emotions, we must remember science is never black and white. Until dogs can cognitively communicate with humans the answer will not be completely answered.

It has not been too many generations ago that certain races of people were given less than human status. Just because this was an assumption it was incorrect.

[cindynok]

Thirty plus years ago hubby and I oversaw a cattle ranch. We still used horses and dogs every night to round up the cattle , check during calving etc.
Our female collie was out with hubby and the sitter was with me. We were missing the collie, we were on 360 acres. We found her dead by the road, she had probably taken off after a rabbit. We lived way, way out in the country, maybe 4 or 5 cars went by the place a day. We were devistated, but I witnessed something as my husband dug the grave and prepared to bury the collie, the sitter whimpered and laid by the grave whimpering, she contiuned to mourn for her lost companion in the same way for days.

If she lacked all the attributes it takes to mourn, go back to the grave and whimper and cry for days, how can the behavior be explained. I have seen many other dags that do not respond in this way but take up where they left off.

[Missymay]

Of course with an all positive method all you can teach is one side, because there is never a consequence for the wrong behavior.

This is just a huge peeve of mine.

A positive only method would be R+/P+. Both of these quads are adding a consequence. I don't know anyone who would use only these two quads. Positive only does not exist except in the mids of the ignorant.

If you mean R+ only, again, just doesn't happen. No trainer I know (and I know a lot of trainers0 use only R+.

There are consequences in the R+ based training methology. They would be P-. P- can be quite powerful. It is not the little sister or brother to any of the quads and is just as effective a tool as any other.

You could easily replace the word "dog" with child or children.

I strongly disagree. Children have many more avenues of learning available to them then dogs do. Children can learn by example. Children can learn from situation they have never encountered. One can explain things to children.

As to grieving, I agree. Dogs can indeed greive and feel.

[Doggie Python]

I don't think dogs have a sense of morality. They do understand and can be taught social expectations and boundaries. They can learn social skills, gain confidence, and manners. But to me, this has more to do with being "wired" by nature (and bred for by man) to function within a social group.

The ability to learn socially is sometimes more of an information exchange via one of the senses (like observational learning), rather than a direct operant conditioning experience.

Emotions. Yes. Probably a bit different from us because we analize everything to death.

Abstract thought and higher reasoning? I think that depends upon the nature/nurture/individual dog. Play and a sense of humor have a certain amount of abstract interaction.

Do dogs recognise their own reflection as themselves? Are they self aware?