"whispering" . . .or "dancing"?

[sandgrubber]

Sorry, I do physics better than anatomy. 'Inguinal' is jargon to me and I can't tie it to understanding of physiology . . . but I think the answer is 'yes'. 'Hard' needs to be defined, and is the crux of the physical argument. I think 'hard' equates to high pressure. Pressure is force/area. For the most part, high pressure is what punctures, breaks, and generally does damage. If you distribute force over a broader area, the effect is much different (eg, snoeshoes don't break through and sink in soft snow, while spike heels may damage a softwood floor).

I thump indiscriminately and I get the same response from the dog when I hit the 'gut' as when I hit the 'butt'. Physics tells us that force distributed over a broad area (ie, flat hand slap or normal shoes) produces low pressure, and while it may make a lot of noise, does much less damage that force delivered over a small area (knuckle punch, spike heel, kick with pointed toe . . . or for that matter, bullets). I 'thump' with a flat hand. The dogs' reactions show me that it doesn't bother them no matter where I hit. I'm pretty sure that damage/pain comes from 'pressure' (ie force/area). Area increases rapidly as the region of contact enlarges, cause 'enlargement' generally means width and breadth increase together. Hence 'area' tends to increase as a squared term, and will tend to dominate the force term when the point of contact expands. So it comes down to whether CM does a focused toe kick (high pressure), or broadly distributes the force by using the crook of his ankle (large area, hence may lift the dog, but no high pressure, thus pretty harmless). The videos shown in the anti-CM video show him whacking with an ankle or taking of his shoes to use the crook of his ankle. So my guess is that he may surprise the dog by pushing it or lifting it off its feet, but he's not hurting it as in 'gloves off' knuckle punches. Nor do I see a long, max-speed swing (more physics, but boxing equivalent of a fully developed swing). It would take sophisticate instrumentation to see whether and how soon he puts on the brake when he makes contact . . . but I'd guess that the physical effect is more one of 'tap' and 'surprise' than 'damage' or 'hurt'.

Apologies for getting mathematical. And to any mathematicians, apologies for not reducing it to the formula

one of my dogs loves to thumped in the side and on the bum as a reward........pretty sure I am hitting him harder than Cesar does.

Would you hit him in the inguinal region in the same way? Is it a good analogy?

Edited March 22, 2011 by sandgrubber

[jacqui835]

Sorry, I do physics better than anatomy. 'Inguinal' is jargon to me and I can't tie it to understanding of physiology . . . but I think the answer is 'yes'. 'Hard' needs to be defined, and is the crux of the physical argument. I think 'hard' equates to high pressure. Pressure is force/area. For the most part, high pressure is what punctures, breaks, and generally does damage. If you distribute force over a broader area, the effect is much different (eg, snoeshoes don't break through and sink in soft snow, while spike heels may damage a softwood floor).

I thump indiscriminately and I get the same response from the dog when I hit the 'gut' as when I hit the 'butt'. Physics tells us that force distributed over a broad area (ie, flat hand slap or normal shoes) produces low pressure, and while it may make a lot of noise, does much less damage that force delivered over a small area (knuckle punch, spike heel, kick with pointed toe . . . or for that matter, bullets). I 'thump' with a flat hand. The dogs' reactions show me that it doesn't bother them no matter where I hit. I'm pretty sure that damage/pain comes from 'pressure' (ie force/area). Area increases rapidly as the region of contact enlarges, cause 'enlargement' generally means width and breadth increase together. Hence 'area' tends to increase as a squared term, and will tend to dominate the force term when the point of contact expands. So it comes down to whether CM does a focused toe kick (high pressure), or broadly distributes the force by using the crook of his ankle (large area, hence may lift the dog, but no high pressure, thus pretty harmless). The videos shown in the anti-CM video show him whacking with an ankle or taking of his shoes to use the crook of his ankle. So my guess is that he may surprise the dog by pushing it or lifting it off its feet, but he's not hurting it as in 'gloves off' knuckle punches. Nor do I see a long, max-speed swing (more physics, but boxing equivalent of a fully developed swing). It would take sophisticate instrumentation to see whether and how soon he puts on the brake when he makes contact . . . but I'd guess that the physical effect is more one of 'tap' and 'surprise' than 'damage' or 'hurt'.

Apologies for getting mathematical. And to any mathematicians, apologies for not reducing it to the formula

one of my dogs loves to thumped in the side and on the bum as a reward........pretty sure I am hitting him harder than Cesar does.

Would you hit him in the inguinal region in the same way? Is it a good analogy?

Haha just the other day we noticed the exact same thing. I often hug my dog and whack him on the side a bit like you would with a horse, and he loves it. Dan pointed out to me that I pat my dog harder than I smack him, but, it has a totally different affect on him because he knows he's in trouble and that's what makes him upset, not the actual smack (plus he doesn't seem to feel physical pain). We raised our dog on CM methods, starting with choosing a balanced puppy to begin with based on CM's book, and he has a bit of a fan club these days because he's such a wonderful dog who I really can and do take anywhere I want. CM doesn't advocate smacking your dog, and there's a difference between when I smack my dog - which is more symbolic than anything else, to when I touch my dog on the neck, or under his stomach to shock him a bit and draw his attention away from the rabbit or whatever he's fixated on. CM taught me that a slight tug on the lead (rather than yanking your dog, which is what I would have automatically assumed) is actually the more effective way to get their attention back on you and wondering what you want.

I have watched almost every episode of CM and I have never seen what I would term abuse - I have never seen a dog sustain any sort of injury, I've never seen him angry with a dog, I have never seen him not want to help a dog and I've never seen a dog dislike or fear him more than it dislikes or fears the general public. For the most part, I see the exact opposite. I've even seen episodes where he refers the dogs to other people because he thinks their environment and approach may suit them better. I think what some people seem to be forgetting here is that these are dogs that without CM would be put down. These are dogs that are completely unsuited to living in society, that have fallen so far from the norm that they're basically existing in a different world.

And how many people have invested as much time and money into the welfare of dogs as CM? Is there anyone who would even come close? He is a true champion for the dogs. The only thing I would ask him to change is for him to put more emphasis on the fact that the majority of the public shouldn't be trying to implement his strategies themselves, and that the dogs he's dealing with require different sort of treatment from the dogs they meet in the park (ie if one more idiot tries to roll my dog in the park claiming to be a CM fan - well it's enough to drive you mad). Perhaps to state that he is running a program to show you his experiences, not to try and teach people how to handle or identify red zone cases...

[Nekhbet]

If we're able to put the dog into more and more challenging situations then we can demonstrate some level of reliability by the dog not responding with aggression. Sure, we can never say the dog will never respond with aggression ever again, but we establish a probability.

If we elicit the response, then correct it, what extra measure of reliability does that give us? What principle are we applying that gives us confidence that the response is now gone? How is that probability any different to the probability I describe above?

Because when you correct effectively (and I'm not saying this is the only thing you do you still have to gradually proof the dog and set up for wins) you introduce an extra element of safety in the way that when the dog has to make a decision in its reaction it will think 'if I do lunge out it's really unpleasant, but if I stay with my handler I know it's really awesome!". If you avoid all correction what recourse does the dog have for exhibiting the dangerous behaviour? None. When that same dog who has not been corrected one day feels sick or sore, and it's threshold for reacting plummets down what extra little safety net have you instilled to prevent it blowing up again like it did before? None. Cross the line, wherever that may be with that dog today, and get the bite.

In fact I see corrections make dogs think twice about exhibiting the response and actually self correcting themselves. I have a few DA dogs that have totally turned around because of them, they still vocalise normally in dog club when running around in the group but they wont take it that extra level anymore. All it takes is one word and they ramp down their behaviour because they remember the correction.

As for CM using his foot, why would he bend down? The point is surprise, the dog will notice you bending over whereas you can quickly nip it in the butt with your foot And being hit in the inguinal region, my dogue was rolled over on his back, 3 small children were all over him. One gave him a cracker of a slap on the stomach he didnt flinch. Considering a swift kick to the actual stomach will have you doubled over literally, which none of these dogs are, I think we're over reaching on the estimations.

Corvus that Malamute he guessed had some wolf in it because of some behaviours it exhibited being more wolf then domestic dog.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Nekhbet

[corvus]

To me the concern is not so much that he kicks dogs and how the kick feels to the dog, but the fact that he sets them up so he needs to do it in the first place. I'm far more distressed by a dog that is forced into a situation they do not want to be in so they can be "shown" how not to behave. To me, they are shown that the absolute worst thing can happen to them and they can't do anything to stop it but they didn't die. I would rather a confident dog that knows how to cope. They will learn how to cope either way in the end, but if they can learn slowly in easy steps rather than in one giant, confusing leap, why force them to leap?

[LizT]

I have to say over the years I have met one or two dogs that have "needed" a good swift kick!!!!

[Nekhbet]

They will learn how to cope either way in the end, but if they can learn slowly in easy steps rather than in one giant, confusing leap, why force them to leap?

not every dog has the luxury of this. Many owners want to see safety or it's a one way trip to the vet.

Dog behaviour is not always going to be warm and fuzzy. You do what you have to do to make the dog safe, yes it may be confused for the first time but you show it the right way to remove that confusion.

[Aidan3]

Sorry, I do physics better than anatomy. 'Inguinal' is jargon to me and I can't tie it to understanding of physiology . . .

It's the lower abdominal area. Try putting some pressure on the fold between your dog's hind leg and abdomen, then put the same pressure on the fold between your dog's front leg and abdomen and see if you get the same response. Normally (unless your dog is habituated to this sort of pressure), you won't. The abdomen is protected by virtue of being underneath the dog, it is otherwise poorly protected having no bones and little muscle protecting it from underneath.

I'm pretty sure that damage/pain comes from 'pressure' (ie force/area).

Damage comes from pressure minus whatever resistance is offered. I really doubt Cesar is physically damaging these dogs and that is not the point.

Pain is poorly understood, despite being one of the largest industries (pain management) in medicine and psychology. We do know that areas that require greater sensitivity (e.g areas that house important organs but are not protected by bone) produce more sensation of pain. Pain perception increases or decreases depending on arousal, the reason why I feel nothing until after the game of rugby has finished (unless I get an elbow to the kidneys or a palm to the nose).

Good psychological research into pain attempts to "triangulate" subjective experiences with objective data. In the dog's case we really can't ask them how they feel on any sort of scale or comparison, but we can observe their responses. Attempting to escape and responding with aggression (both clearly and repeatedly shown in the video) are good datum points to begin to form a picture. Seeing this over and over again is a form of test-retest reliability of this measure.

If kicking in the abdomen didn't elicit a stronger response than anywhere else, why doesn't Cesar kick anywhere else (the tail, for e.g)? Is it purely superstitious behaviour on Cesar's part? I doubt it.

Slapping a dog about on the rump or shoulders can be reinforcing. We can prove this by increasing the rate of responding of an operant that precedes this consequence. I've never seen anyone reinforce a dog by slapping him on the stomach or throat, both areas which could accommodate the full area of the hand thus distributing the force in the same way. You could try it, but not on my dog

Perhaps more important is the psychological dimension, the effect it has on current and future behaviour. Unfortunately understanding this requires some background and it's pretty technical. One of the researchers in the field of "affective neuroscience" (the science of emotion) attempts to make this field more accessible by referring to circuits in the brain such as "PANIC" and "FEAR" and "RAGE" that correspond with physical circuits in the brain that we can measure in a variety of ways. The aforementioned are not good states for learning, and until I see some objective data that shows a benefit in deliberately eliciting high levels of activation of these areas of the brain, I will remain skeptical. Even just some fair tests on the show would sow the seed of doubt in the data for me, or some follow-up demonstrating the changes. We believe all sorts of things, remember how much everyone loved John Edwards the psychic?

There is something I would like to add, not pertinent to my response above or directed at anyone in particular (certainly not sandgrubber). I'm not "Cesar bashing". I'm debating his more controversial methods on rational grounds. I think until people start to get an understanding of those "rational grounds" it looks like I'm attacking the person and not his argument but that is not the case. A handful of people here get that already, but I think it bears mentioning.

I think Cesar does a lot of good things and has a lot of good advice and I'm of the understanding that he has saved a lot of dogs from being put down. So does your local obedience club. His special talent is getting it on TV, it's just a shame that it's also a platform for some very dangerous advice.

[jacqui835]

They will learn how to cope either way in the end, but if they can learn slowly in easy steps rather than in one giant, confusing leap, why force them to leap?

not every dog has the luxury of this. Many owners want to see safety or it's a one way trip to the vet.

Dog behaviour is not always going to be warm and fuzzy. You do what you have to do to make the dog safe, yes it may be confused for the first time but you show it the right way to remove that confusion.

Many owners just can't even handle it. Think about it. If they let their dogs get to this point, do you really think they are going to be willing and/or able to rehabilitate them slowly and properly? CM always says he's there to rehabilitate dogs but people are the ones who need the training.

[corvus]

They will learn how to cope either way in the end, but if they can learn slowly in easy steps rather than in one giant, confusing leap, why force them to leap?

not every dog has the luxury of this. Many owners want to see safety or it's a one way trip to the vet.

Dog behaviour is not always going to be warm and fuzzy. You do what you have to do to make the dog safe, yes it may be confused for the first time but you show it the right way to remove that confusion.

Many owners just can't even handle it. Think about it. If they let their dogs get to this point, do you really think they are going to be willing and/or able to rehabilitate them slowly and properly? CM always says he's there to rehabilitate dogs but people are the ones who need the training.

Did it look to you like JonBee's owners could handle CM's approach?

And I question if every dog on The Dog Whisperer is one that doesn't have the luxury of being able to be baby-stepped through. How do you know? I don't!

Edited March 23, 2011 by corvus

[Aidan3]

Because when you correct effectively (and I'm not saying this is the only thing you do you still have to gradually proof the dog and set up for wins) you introduce an extra element of safety in the way that when the dog has to make a decision in its reaction it will think 'if I do lunge out it's really unpleasant, but if I stay with my handler I know it's really awesome!".

If they did think like that (and I know you know they don't), they might think "It doesn't matter where I turn, it's dangerous everywhere!" Is it really awesome staying with a handler who is liable to kick you in the stomach then hoist you up on a slip collar when you're already frightened out of your mind? It's a bit hard to believe. Remember here that I am debating the methods seen on Cesar's show, not what others might do.

If you avoid all correction what recourse does the dog have for exhibiting the dangerous behaviour? None.

If he's not exhibiting the dangerous behaviour, it's a moot point. Will he exhibit it in the future? We don't know. How do we find out?

Two ways:

1. elicit the response and punish it. Then we can test again, and punish again if it crops up. Our level of confidence decreases every time we successfully elicit the response, and increases every time we fail to elicit the response.

2. push just shy of the response and reinforce the alternative response. Then we can push a little more the next time, and little more. Our level of confidence decreases if we elicit the unwanted response, and increases every time we reinforce the alternative response.

So is there a difference in our confidence? I would argue that there isn't. Is there any experimental data that suggests there is a difference? Some, but it goes both ways and leads to new arguments.

In fact I see corrections make dogs think twice about exhibiting the response and actually self correcting themselves. I have a few DA dogs that have totally turned around because of them, they still vocalise normally in dog club when running around in the group but they wont take it that extra level anymore. All it takes is one word and they ramp down their behaviour because they remember the correction.

Well I think you know I'm not arguing against corrections, sometimes that is the only practical way and I'm certainly not debating your methods. I'm debating Cesar's methods. I also have reactive dogs who have never been punished "self-correct", in fact it's what we're always looking for, for them to make the choice and learn that it's a good choice to make.

[Nekhbet]

corvus what is your experience with aggression?

You seem to be basing your assumptions that the correction is the only thing I use it seems. No its not. It's an extra tool. Also, since you are not a dog I dont see the point of adding an anthropomorphised example into this mix, do you?

Have you never seen self correction. Where a dog stops itself exhibiting then through what it has been taught, looks up at the owner instead? Guess what happens off lead too even with the 'punisher' not present - ie no collar on the dog at all - if you've done the training correctly. But then that goes with everything doesnt it ... some peoples dogs wont listen unless you have their favourite food in your hand, bad training on that behalf too.

Some people seem to want to treat dogs like idiots. They are capable of learning decent amounts in a short space of time. If we can teach the dog in a shorter space of time with a different method whats the problem with that?

Well I think you know I'm not arguing against corrections, sometimes that is the only practical way and I'm certainly not debating your methods. I'm debating Cesar's methods. I also have reactive dogs who have never been punished "self-correct", in fact it's what we're always looking for, for them to make the choice and learn that it's a good choice to make.

ANd your point is correct Aiden. I'm not saying corrections are for all dogs either, sometimes simply rewarding the better choice is the right thing for that particular dog. But as we both know it's horses for courses when it comes to training you do whats right for the individual.

As I said Cesar does what he does and it works for him. If people want to see it as kicking and abuse, well some will never be swayed.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Nekhbet

[jackie_a1]

At the video posted.

Too many people on this forum think that they have all the answers, or that they know it all or you dismiss others training ability because it's not what YOU agree with or what YOU have been taught or learnt. Listen what people need to understand is that there a thousand and one methods of training your dog out there. Some may be bad some may be good but what they all have in common is that regardless of what method you use there are going to be people that don't agree with it. Just like some people do not agree with positive some people do not agree with negative.

For me based on Ceaser's methods it does not render his training void, nor cruel there is a HUGE difference between a tap, or kick (as it's been called here)to beating your dog. What I see is C.M making physical contact to snap the dog out of the mind state that it is in. Like I said he has gotten results and there are many people out there who follow his methods (sensibly) and have gotten great results. I am one of them.

Let me know when anyone here ever gets their own show and becomes a world renown trainer then I'll be sure to take your criticism into account

Edited March 23, 2011 by jackie_a1

[corvus]

corvus what is your experience with aggression?

You seem to be basing your assumptions that the correction is the only thing I use it seems. No its not. It's an extra tool. Also, since you are not a dog I dont see the point of adding an anthropomorphised example into this mix, do you?

What assumptions? I'm not making any. I KNOW dogs can be baby-stepped because there are people like Grisha Stewart and Jesús Rosales-Ruiz/Kellie Snider that have heavily researched it. They are hardly the only ones. There is plenty of evidence that it works. I am not assuming it is the right method for every dog on The Dog Whisperer. My argument is that I find it unlikely every dog on The Dog Whisperer is for whatever reason not suitable to be rehabilitated this way.

Have you never seen self correction.

I certainly have. I would point out that it's not necessarily an operant process, which seems to be your assumption.

Do I object to the use of aversion training using classical conditioning? No, not if it's done well and carefully planned.

[Kavik]

Let me know when anyone here ever gets their own show and becomes a world renown trainer then I'll be sure to take your criticism into account

What about world renowned trainers that criticise Cesar's methods? Do they count

[jackie_a1]

Yes they do Kavik hehe

I'm not voiding anyone elses opinions I know there are some very good trainers on here. But I was just trying to get my point across he isn't where he is by simply guessing

[Aidan3]

Too many people on this forum think that they have all the answers, or that they know it all or you dismiss others training ability

The argument that I'm putting forward is based on the fact that we don't have all the answers and neither does Cesar Millan. You can either blindly accept what you see on a television show, or you can think about it and discuss it like an adult.

It's called rational debate, but some people can't seem to grasp that, preferring to let their emotions and beliefs rule their thoughts. Hence, if you do want a rational debate on Cesar's methods, you are labelled as a "Cesar basher". Political correctness gone mad.

All sorts of things "work". Chloroform works. Starvation works. Why wouldn't a clicker trainer starve a dog? When does deprivation become abuse?

I'd like to thank Nekbhet and sandgrubber (and a few others) for being able to have an adult discussion on this topic.

[jackie_a1]

Who is not discussing it like an adult? I haven't insulted anyone personally or quoted anyone in particular but as a general rule many many people on this forum are quick to dismiss or criticise without accepting the good in the argument as well. It seems you either have to agree with Ceaser or not. You cannot just agree with some methods etc.

What is the actual debate?? That C.M's methods don't work? Or that they do? It's not really clear what the argument is?

[Aidan3]

Who is not discussing it like an adult? I haven't insulted anyone personally or quoted anyone in particular but as a general rule many many people on this forum are quick to dismiss or criticise without accepting the good in the argument as well. It seems you either have to agree with Ceaser or not. You cannot just agree with some methods etc.

What is the actual debate?? That C.M's methods don't work? Or that they do? It's not really clear what the argument is?

If you want to get in on the debate, it's all there for you. Just about everyone has "agreed with some methods" and acknowledged the good so I'm not sure why you would suggest otherwise? Not that it should be necessary to be politically correct and avoid stepping on anyone's toes just so you can have an adult discussion of specific issues.

[jackie_a1]

Aidan address my question.

WHAT is the actual debate? Then if I know what the debate is perhaps I can participate like an adult. For an example are we debating that C.M's methods are cruel? Are we debating that C.M's methods are ineffective? Or are members just debating amongst themselves about whether or not they agree to his methods? Or are we debating that his methods are effective? I cannot see one singular topic of debate but instead a whole series of such so I am confused. What is it exactly that we are debating?

[Aidan3]

Aidan address my question.

WHAT is the actual debate?

OK, where do you draw the line between a "kick" and a "tap"? You said there is a huge difference between the two, which is a good start, but how do you define the difference? The intent of the trainer, the effect on the dog, physical damage, psychological damage, if it's to elicit a response to correct, is it "necessary" to do it this way or is it even necessary to correct the response?

Opinions are fine, examples are better, evidence to support your argument is best if you have it.

P.S a lot of these points have been discussed in detail already, I would rather continue from where we already got to unless you require clarification on something that I have said.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Aidan2