Ian Dunbar: Dog-friendly dog training
www.ted.com Speaking at the 2007 EG conference, trainer Ian Dunbar asks us to see the world through the eyes of our beloved dogs. By knowing our pets' perspective, we can build their love and trust. It's a message that resonates well beyond the animal world.
That is good news. After all how many times can I ask for actual citations so we can discuss actual data and the overstated conclusions many people have perpetuated. So in others words you can believe in the middle ground of agreeing about exercise (perhaps even of not rewarding unwanted behavior) but you won’t agree to anything else. That’s OK. It is actually in the middle. You ignore that observing the results of Cesar’s training activities is evidence. By definition. It was fun. Bye.
Good news cschaffh: A favor to the readers: I will terminate this lame back and forth commenting we are engaged in. You remind me of a high school friend who told me he believed that one can be a scientist and still have a belief in a sky god or other things for which there is no evidence. Nope — the two are singularly contradictory. No true scientist can believe in a sky god or any other supernatural force, just as one can’t know the science of dog learning and still value Milan.
I emplore you to actually read what you write before clicking the ‘post comment’ button. Your sentences are filled mostly with inane ideas that you try to make relevant to some point that only you are aware of. Cesar Milan has NO training, education, or credentials in behavioral science or animal ethology, and knows no more about dogs than the cadre of ‘traditional’ trainers that have been pushing the same tired old methods since 1953. Cesar has only made dogs’ lives harder by perpetuating myths
Yes, I do admit that the concept of ‘calm assertive’ is foreign to me, but that’s because no one, including Cesar (and he’s been challenged to do this) can define it or assert the criteria that chracterize it. Cesar adheres to ‘dominance theory,’ which is too complicated for him to actually understand, and he also believes that dogs are pack animals, which they’re not, and he believes in an erroneous concept referred to as an ‘alpha dog,’ which doesn’t exist.
Cesar has only one valuable lesson: provide as much exercise to your dog as the dog can tolerate. The rest of his chant is junk. I never asserted a ‘premise’ or ‘hypothesis.’ Using words like that does not confer credibility to your comments.
So, credentials mean very little, eh? I’ve been told that a few times in my life, but only by people who didn’t have any credentials. Am I surprised?
You disclosed your thinking when you stated you stood in the ‘middle ground’ between science and the junk of Milan — it was then that I concluded your comments were worthless.
Science is not a vague reference to a single article with limited relevance to your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is clear: Science shows that everything Cesar teaches is wrong. aka “nothing to offer”, zero. I have already shown your premise false, so spending the next 7 years searching for data showing everything he says is false will be waste of time. Remember, I only criticized Dunbar’s tone of voice. Dunbar and Cesar may both be wrong at times. My argument is that you definitely are.
I’m still bothered by this. keeg, you actually admit that you don’t know what the hell Cesar means when he teaches his theories. Calm assertive body language is a cornerstone of his method. How can you criticize something you don’t understand and call it science? It is actually bias. In more rigorous fields, scientists will insist important experimental results are repeated and confirmed independently before fully accepting them. This is science.
I agree very few uniformed dog owners will use effective techniques to change a dog’s behavior, particularly aggression. I have spoken with several trainers who say only R+ should be used. At least you have started using comments like “almost”, rather than your previous knee jerk absolutist statements of before. It is concerning you did not bother to inform yourself what specific techniques I was for or against before your rant. Enjoy your career, I will enjoy my objective unbiased thinking.
Unfortunately, credentials mean very little. 7 years of biased thinking is still biased thinking. Often times people use metaphors to explain concepts, I apologize if this was overly sophisticated. It was to point out that the study by design documented the results of uninformed dog owners. You (and others) choose to take the results to support unsubstantiated blanket statements. I am still interested in any additional relevant research, if you have any to provide.
What is hypothetical research? I have never heard of such a thing. Also, the example of the ‘hypothetical research’ you give is out of left field and doesn’t relate whatsoever to using R+ methods to train dogs. Also, what the hell is ‘calm, assertive’ mean? Try getting away from the Cesar videos and go study animal ethology for 6-7 years, then come back and we can talk further.
To continue: Very few owners have the formal training and knowledge to use desensitivity and counter-conditioning methods to help a truly aggressive dog. What are you talking about? Who advises to reward a dog for aggressive behavior?
You either don’t comprehend the studies, have been reading garbage, or sinply chose to make things up as you go along (just like Milan). Confrontational methods ‘can create agression of used incorrectly’? Confrontational methods are almost always incorrect in their use and almost always cause an increase in reactivity. Also, where did you read that R+ training with rewards is used to calm aggression? True aggression can never be cured by R+ training alone.
Here is new hypothetical research: A sample of 140 humans were observed in their homes as someone entered the house and instructed them to hand over their wallets. 25% resisted and showed aggression. Clear proof to use positive methods? What if 25% were approached by someone wearing a ski mask and the rest were approached by police officers. The data does not show (nor did it test) that calm assertive (correct) use of the techniques will not work.
Actually, I know which one you refer to, it seems to be the default counterargument, despite clear faults in drawing parallels to Cesar’s techniques. It does in fact demonstrate that confrontational methods can create aggression if used incorrectly. Unfortunately, this is also true of positive methods, as owners will attest when they have tried to calm aggression by rewarding them. This is the only legitimate conclusion allowed by the data of the study.
Congratulations on earning your master’s degree.
Do you agree is it important to exercise your dog’s mind and body?
Do you agree that you should not reinforce unwanted behavior with attention or praise?
If you answer yes, then you are contradicting yourself that Cesar has nothing to offer. To answer your question, I mean dogs who have not been raised with Dr. Dunbar’s methods and have grown to be reactive and aggressive generally. Please list more specific info on the U Penn study. Authors?
In addition, I have no idea what you mean by ‘aggressive dogs who will bite humans,’ since any dog, given sufficient reason (in the dog’s mind) will bite a human. Several studies over the past 10 years (check out the most well known one by the Univ of Pennsylvania) have provided clear evidence that highly reactive dogs, as well as those who have a history of frequent, unprovoked aggression, can be helped only through R+ methods with concurrent counter-conditioning.
There is no middle ground between science and non-science, thus no middle ground between Dunbar and Milann. That assertion by you assumes that they both have something to offer, but Milan doesn’t. His methods are not new and are based on erroneous conclusions drawn from artificially constructed wolf packs in the 1940s and 1950s. You can find links to many papers on canine ethology on the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) site. By the way, I hold an MS in Animal Ethology.
keeg021985, I look forward to discussing specifics of science of dog learning with you. Please provide the citations of peer reviewed articles that conclusively demonstrate that a “middle ground” in fact does not exist in dog training. Also please only list those that specifically deal with aggressive dogs who will bite humans. SInce you assume incorrectly that I did not listen to the talk, you are already starting off wrong. Let’s hear what you know about the science.
You obviously did not actually LISTEN to his talk. Also, there is no ‘middle ground’ in dog training: There is that which is based on the science of animal learning (Dunbar) and that which is based on the same old school methods used since the 1950s and based on erroneous suppositions (Milan).
He caught my attn talking about the boy on the plane. I see it in my training classes with dogs and owners who get so frustrated rather than reverting to training. Ughh.
I am in the middle ground camp between Dunbar and Cesar. What strikes me about this talk is his disdain for dog owners (and people in general). He is so abrasive he is “punishing” the audience for listening, and then he wonders why people stop listening. There is a better way to tell people they are wrong. I disagree that a dog (like mine) would rather die than feel momentary discomfort, but agree that as soon as the dog reduces aggression you should switch to PR and simply saying No.
Place 3 dog trainers together. The only thing 2 will agree upon is that the third one is wrong!!!
Hahaha! Me too! I suggest his books too! I think in order to train a dog you need to be able to communicate with them… And since they will not ever speak English we need to learn their language in order to teach them ours. That is my favorite part of training: the communication.