Dogan Dogs Video Blogs

The concept of “Alpha” is a point of contention in many circles. I will do my best to try and explain why.

What are words?

As we communicate with one another, we often forget that words are logical constructs. They create pictures, notions, beliefs, feelings, etc. in our brains. The very same word can have a different meaning depending on the age of the speaker/listener, context, gender, cultural background, etc. Here are two examples.

Imagine two people speaking with one another. One is very young, the other very old. Say a teen and his grandma in her 90s. The word “gay” will most likely have a different meaning and create a different logical construct in their respective minds. To the teen, the word “gay” means homosexual, to his grandma, the word ‘gay” means happy.  Same word, different age, different logical construct.

How bout we send two people at a cheese tasting event.

The phrase “I got to get me some cheddar” would be taken to mean “I got to get a particular kind of cheese”. In almost any other context, the same phrase would be taken to mean “I got to get me some money”.  Same word/phrase, different context, different logical construct.

What word or phrase has different meaning based on the gender? Can you think of other examples?

In dog training circles, the term “Alpha-dog” is interpreted differently by different people. Because it’s interpreted differently there is a lot of contention as to the validity of the Alpha-dog/wolf/male concept.

To some, the term “Alpha” creates a logical construct of a high-school football quarterback, bull-headed CEO, drill sergeant, etc.

Some words that might describe these constructs would be single-minded, aggressive, strong-handed, loud, full-tilt, angry, mean and nasty, inconsiderate, etc.

These constructs are exactly the wrong kind of mind-set to bring into a dog training session.

If you are the kind of person who creates this particular construct in your mind when you hear the term “alpha”, then by all means, you shouldn’t get on board with the concept of pack leader, alpha-dog/wolf/male, pack hierarchy and other related notions.

However, there is another way to interpret the term “alpha”.

Imagine a teacher walking into a classroom for the first time.

New teacher, new students, new classroom. 

We can all imagine a teacher who has exhibited "alpha" characteristics mentioned above. This teacher operates from the position of fear and overcompensates by appearing aggressive, loud, angry, etc. We can imagine this teacher because we’ve had such a teacher.

So instead, let’s endow our teacher (we will call him Ben) with different kind of characteristics and see if he can be "alpha".

The mind-set Ben takes is not self-centered. It is instead projected outward.

Ben knows that his posture and tone of voice will affect the mood of the students (or dogs for that matter).

Ben considers it his responsibility to create an environment maximally conducive to learning. His goal is to put the students at ease, elevate their mood, and create a positive flow of information exchange.

Ben will accomplish this with an open and confident posture, a smile, an inviting demeanor, and even eye contact. Most importantly, he will approach this situation with the right kind of intention.

Sidenote: Direct eye contact is considered a sign of aggression in dog world; however, there is a difference in the aggressive stare and a kind, warm gaze. The dog knows the difference.

From the outside looking in, Ben’s classroom is his, he is undoubtedly the leader of that particular pack, and he is not aggressive, and not angry. In fact, his objective is to accomplish tranquility and balance in his environment.

This in many people’s minds is what makes him alpha.

The breeding wolf (alpha-wolf) displays the same type of behavior towards his pack as Ben displays towards his students as we can display towards our dog.

This by the way doesn’t make Ben soft. Just like his wolfy counterpart, Ben can protect the pack (the way a good manager shields his employees from corporate politics for example), act decisively if and when necessary and enforce order through cooperation. Not intimidation and fear.

That is what alpha-dog/wolf/male means to the some.

Both logical constructs are difficult to define but we know them when we see them, right?

Hitler was the first kind of alpha-male; Buddha and Jesus were the second kind of alpha-male.

Bonus:

This is the same person talking about the same topic few decades apart. The behavior of the wolves didn't change, only the focus of our words.

Related Posts:

Dharma and Greg: What Can Sitcom Characters Teach us About Dog Training

Attenuation Problem in Dog Training

Your Dog: The Main Protagonist in a Russian Melodrama

The Issue of Indoctrination 

In this article I will lay out the 3 primary (most popular) schools of thought, explain the pros and cons of each, and talk about that old and very human tendency to follow.

There are three main schools of thought when it comes to dog training.

1. The (William R.) Koehler method, or as it’s commonly referred to “yank and crank” training method.
2. The Positive Training method popularized by Ian Dunbar, Karen Pryor, Jean Donaldson and many others.
3. The Pack Structure method popularized by The Monks of New Skete and Cesar Milan.

There are of course other (smaller) factions but these are the 3 big ones.

So what’s the problem?

What I’m about to say is beyond the most dog owner’s radar since most dog owners simply don’t care, but these three factions have been involved in a war of words for decades.

The battle lines are drawn, the positions have been taken, and fox holes are filled with dog professionals preaching only their method as the ultimate, the best, and the only way to train the dog.

I think the method that receives the most criticism is the “yank and crank” method.

Since it’s brutal in many ways and offends today’s sensibilities, it is demonized and punished especially by the Positive Reinforcement crowd. Isn't that the definition of irony?

If we examine methods Mr. William R. Koehler used on Lassie and Rin Tin Tin (yes, William Koehler was the trainer for Disney Productions) we do learn that some methods were very aversive.

Example:
If a dog is digging up a yard, you are to fill the hole with water and shove the dog’s snout in it. He’ll learn.

Do we now know better, more humane ways of dealing with issues such as digging up a yard? Of course.

So is the Koehler method all bad?

I don’t think so.

One of the principles of  Koehler method training is to apply well timed corrections with conviction.

Example:
For people having problems on a walk, they often are pulled by their dog. The person may pull-back on the leash, but the pull-back is only strong enough to slow down the dog. What Mr. Koehler suggest is that we apply one (if you do it right the second correction may not be necessary) correction that the dog will remember.

This is then much more humane than thousands of small, weak, nagging corrections that are ineffective in fixing the “problem”.

This is one small example of Mr. Koehler’s philosophy on training that I believe is very useful and practical. 

Another thing that most dog trainers (myself included) can learn from Mr. Koehler is timing. His, they say, was impeccable.

 

The next faction is the Positive Reinforcement crowd, led by such greats as Dr. Ian Dunbar, Karen Pryor and Jean Donaldson.

They maintain that only Positive methods are sufficient in dealing with every situation. You will recognize them by their use of clickers, the use of treats to shape behaviors, and generally sunny and pleasant disposition.

While I am very much in favor of positive training methods, we must recognize its shortcomings as well.

Positive training methods (clickers and all) were first implemented on dolphins and orca whales. Only then did those methods make their way over to the dog world.

The argument that this camp will make as to the effectiveness and superiority of their training method is that corrections can’t be applied to whales and dolphins; you can’t put them on a leash, so all you have to rely on is positive shaping alone. And so, the argument goes, “if you can train a dolphin in this way, you can train a dog in this way as well”.

While this is true most of the time, there are two flaws in this logic.

1. The behaviors expected from dogs are infinitely more complex then that of a dolphin. Dogs must be obedient, track, protect, fetch, etc, etc. Dolphins on the other hand must jump out of water on cue. 
2. And second -and I think the most important reason- is that at the end of the day, dolphins stay at the Water World, while dogs actually live with us. 

So if I want a dog to jump over an obstacle, I’d be well advised to use a treat to shape that behavior. However, if a dog has a bad habit of chewing on electric cables in the house (something a dolphin is unlikely to do) then the use of a shock collar may be advisable.

Moving onto the third camp.

There is a lot of jealousy (imho) directed at Cesar Milan and The Monks of New Skete.

The Positive method crowd was on a fast track of ubiquitous acceptance when The Dog Whispered swooped in and stole their thunder, audience, and (to some extent) credibility.

This school emphasizes the similarity between dogs and wolves and wolves are used as a model to fulfill domestic dog’s needs for pack structure and alpha dog leader.

If you were to give wolf and dog strand of DNA to a Genetic Engineer, he would be unable to differentiate the two. Food for thought.

The effectiveness of this method is showcased every week on Cesar Milan’s Dog Whisperer as well as Divine Canine (now canceled) by the Monks of New Skete.  

So what’s the problem?

I guess it’s still too rough for the Positive crowd (especially the use of the alpha roll, physical correction, etc.). So much so that The Monks have capitulated and in their later works (books, DVDs) recommended against the alpha roll.

What are the shortcoming of this method?

I think the biggest shortcomings of this method is that most people are unable to apply it effectively.

Cesar Milan is great at it, but most dog owners he works with on his show are wholly unaware WHY it works. This is despite his best attempts to explain the “energy”, posture, attitude, etc.

Another issue I see with this method is its emphasis on Alpha-Dog concept. Not because it’s wrong but because of the way it’s perceived by most people.

When I say “Alpha-Dog” most people think of the “big man on campus”, the boss, the CEO, the quarterback football jock, the aggressive “take no prisoners” type, and all manner of other nonsense.

In dog (or wolf) world, alpha dog is something entirely different. Alpha dog is NOT aggressive, he is not overbearing, he is not angry, mean and nasty.

In dog (or wolf) world, alpha dog’s first job is to keep order and tranquility inside the pack.

He is caring, playful and kind to the young, patient, even loving, and so many other things people usually DO NOT associate with alpha-dog behavior.

What does all this mean to the dog owner receiving instructions from a dog trainer?

Well, this brings us back to the issue of indoctrination.

If I, as a dog trainer, belong to one camp, then I am unlikely to consider other camp’s methods as valid.

Perhaps one of the other camps has a very effective method of dealing with a particular issue, however, if I’m closed off to the possibility that my camp is “wrong” then I’m unlikely to know or consider other camp’s methods.

This in the end harms the dog and it harms the dog owner.

So, stop the nonsense, stop looking for ways to separate from one another, stop thinking you’re always right, and start allowing for a possibility that other camps have something valid to teach.

Yeah yeah yeah...whatever Dino. Thats all find and dandy but where do you stand? 

OK, thats a fair question.

As a trainer, I am committed to doing whatever works for this dog and this owner in this environment at this time. And I promise not to stop looking for a solution (to whichever methodology the solution might "belong") until a solution if found. 

Thats where I stand.

I should add that marketing is a factor as well.

“Positive training methods only” looks really good on a business card. No?

In PART FOUR, we talk about detachment.

Dog professionals are detached from the process of dog training.  

You’ll find out WHY this is a good thing.

UnRelated Posts:

Sign a Petition for Canine Circumcision

Humans Are Not Penguins and Other Relationship Facts You might Not Know

Albert Einstein, Clever Hans and Your Dog Walk Into a Bar...

Why Girls Who Own Dogs Make for Better Wives