The Genius of Gentle Canine Parenting
In my previous blog post “What is Gentle Canine Parenting” I discussed raising dogs in a way that has proven to help raise happy and confident children and applying those same principles to dogs through empathy, respect, understanding and boundaries. Recent studies have found that dogs are closer to human infants in their ability to bond and socialize with humans than they are to wolves. So, treating a domesticated dog more like a child than it’s ancestor, at least in this aspect, is not a wild idea.
In my search to find modern dog training methods that embody these intentions, I found “The Genius of Dogs” by Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods. The Genius of Dogs is not a training book but instead an open minded, research based introduction to Dog Cognition. It was everything I was looking for and more. A way to understand dogs, on their terms, so that I can successfully be a better teacher for my dog and a more knowledgeable source of current information to everyone reading The Wild Prince Blog. Before the very recent studies into Dog Cognition the prevailing training methods have been “Alpha or Pack Mentality” and “Operant Conditioning or Clicker Training.”
Alpha/Pack mentality has never been used in my home, primarily because the fear and intimidation based training methods have never sat well with me. The only counter argument I have heard to this method (besides the obvious idea that it is cruel and inhumane) is that it is based on the idea that dogs should be trained and raised like their wolf ancestors and that dogs know that we are not dogs or in other word we are not “part of the pack” or an alpha/pack member to be competed with. (This is not to say that some dogs, do not seek to dominate but this is fear based and is more about prime access to things the dog values like food or the best seat on the couch. It is not about being your alpha.)
The Genius of Dogs takes this several steps further by noting that dogs are not only different than their wolf ancestors but they are their own unique animal, period. To illustrate this point they compare the similarities and differences of the domesticated fox. In this study the foxes were bread based on friendliness and curiosity towards humans. Over generations the experimental group of foxes bread for friendliness became more floppy eared, more curly tailed, began to bark (which foxes do not normally do) and became better able to read human social cues. While the control group of foxes that was allowed to breed naturally remained timid and fearful of humans and did not develop these “cute” physical traits but instead remained more fox like in appearance.
In a study testing both groups, the friendlier foxes were better able to read human social cues, much like dogs tested in the same way. While the natural, control group, proved the opposite. It is theorized that this study on foxes is an experimental and sped up version of the way the domesticated dog actually self-domesticated and evolved from wolves over time. As human land grew larger and the land available to wolves grew closer in proximity, it was the friendlier wolves able to scavenge from human trash and leftovers from human hunting that were more likely to survive and breed.
The book also states that a “wolf pack” consists of a “breeding pair” or in other words, a male and female, and their pups. Dogs are aware that we are not their alphas or pack leaders because we are obviously not their mother and father or dogs at all. Which means our relationship is, and there for should be, different than the kind this type of training suggests. Wolves are also more aggressive towards other packs of wolves than domesticated or even feral dogs are towards each other. While dogs are social creatures their main difference, for our purposes, is their evolved ability to socialize and bond with humans. A skill that even modern wolves raised by humans do not fully posses.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, “clicker training” or “positive training” is the kind of training I am most familiar with. The argument I hear against this type of training is that relying on treats can cause problems such as- your student only being willing to listen when treats are involved or that once you use more desirable treats you won’t be able to go back to using lesser treats and of course, they will get fat. ( I have found all these issues to be true. Still, it’s a far cry from shock collars and electric fences.) The solutions I have heard to these problems are to alternate treats and praise and eventually phase out the treats all together. Instead of using treats to use the dogs meals as rewards and both of these solutions should help reduce potential weight gain from over feeding. While I did experience issues with this training method, it seemed to be the only alternative to the alpha/dominance based method. Which, as I’ve said, was just not something I was willing to do. Nor did that type of training seem appropriate for my specific dog who is already timid and anxious but is not afraid to stand up for himself. If I were to guess how training such as this would effect our relationship, I believe it would make him even more afraid of the world, ruin his confidence and break any trust built between us over the passed two years of his life. So, positive training it was for Scout and I.
However, The Genius of Dogs, was also able to explain why “positive training” may not be the best alternative. This training method was primarily taken from a basic understanding of Pavlov’s Dog and B.F. Skinners Behavioral studies. Skinners studies being primarily done using Rats and Pigeons. Two animals (you may have noticed..) are also, not dogs. Besides these studies being conducted on primarily, “not dogs.” Skinner believed that all animal minds were the same and even worse that it was the behavior that mattered and not the mind. In normal human fashion, everyone was cool with it until these studies started to be conducted on humans with the same principles in place, all our minds are the same and they don’t matter as much as the behavior itself.
Skinners behavioral studies were also primarily based on giving and denying reward. Food and or privileges when humans were involved. Which, for anyone who has ever taken psychology 101 goes completely against what we now know is the most beneficial for children and humans in general. It is now known that giving reward or praise is much more beneficial to helping someone learn than punishment or “taking something away.”
Dog Cognition differs from these two training methods by takes into account how your specific dog thinks and learns based on modern studies conducted on dogs, (not rats or pigeons.) It also takes into account the strengths and weaknesses of dogs so that we are better able to work with their learning abilities instead of against them. Dogs have self-domesticated to the point where they trust and look to humans over their own litter mates. (Another study mentioned in The Genius of Dogs) With that in mind, I hope that people will begin to nurture this bond instead of harm it by attempting to train through fear and intimidation like the old idea of “the Alpha.” I hope that people will begin to question if “clicker training,” which ignores the individuality of the domesticated dog and relays on a dog repeatedly doing something wrong until he or she stumbles upon the answer by accident, is really still, “good enough.”
Let’s use this new knowledge as an opportunity to continue learning, asking questions and to create something better. Something that makes sense for humans and dogs and that works with the cognitive abilities of our dogs as individuals. If you’re asking, “where can I start?” If you go to www.dognition.com you can play games with your dog to figure out what their dominant method of learning is. Keep in mind that learning is not linear. Dogs are not dumb they just think differently than humans. “Everybody is Genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” -Albert Einstein Dogs do not need to be dominated and their genius and ability to problem solve should certainly not be ignored or put into a category of “just the same as any other animal.” As their caretakers, it is our responsibility to at least try to understand these animals we so boldly call our family. Greater knowledge and a better understanding can only help to improve the empathy and respect we already have for our four legged friends and we can not hope to set proper boundaries without first knowing their strengths and limitations.
I also can’t help but think what human-animal relations might be like today, if, instead of killing any animal that gets too close to human civilization, we allowed other animals to go the way of the domesticated dog and self domesticate until their fear of humans became a friendly curiosity and perhaps one day even a familial type bond. Maybe one day, humans will evolve to a point where a world like that is possible. The fact that we have learned more about the mind of dogs in the passed decade than in all of the passed century, is certainly a start and I can’t help but feel hopeful.
