different topic: there are no alpha wolves in the wild
having this argument with a couple different people currently. Thus, I'll post it here. And since I already made a big post today, I'll cut this one for the uninterested.
The basis for the issue is that the currently prevalent view of wolf behaviour is based on wolves in captivity that aren't even related to each other. lest we forget that Freud formed his ideas that all men want to have sex with their mothers not by observing large groups of men, but instead by observing a small group of pregnant women. I hold such a high professional disdain for most psychologists and behaviourists because they choose to hold in high regard those who study the unnatural, and then infer from that study what the behaviour of the norm is. There is no alpha in a wolf pack, and I do not, in any way, want to have sex with my mother.
From: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/alstat/alpst.htm
"Labeling a high-ranking wolf alpha emphasizes its rank in a dominance hierarchy. However, in natural wolf packs, the alpha male or female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none.
Thus, calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. Any parent is dominant to its young offspring, so "alpha" adds no information. Why not refer to an alpha female as the female parent, the breeding female, the matriarch, or simply the mother? Such a designation emphasizes not the animal's dominant status, which is trivial information, but its role as pack progenitor, which is critical information."
Or read the best bit about this, at: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/resources/mech_pdfs/267alphastatus_english.pdf
"Abstract: The prevailing view of a wolf (Canis lupus) pack is that of a group of
individuals ever vying for dominance but held in check by the "alpha" pair, the alpha
male and the alpha female. Most research on the social dynamics of wolf packs, however,
has been conducted on non-natural assortments of captive wolves. Here I describe the
wolf-pack social order as it occurs in nature, discuss the alpha concept and social
dominance and submission, and present data on the precise relationships among members
in free-living packs based on a literature review and 13 summers of observations of
wolves on Ellesmere Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. I conclude that the typical
wolf pack is a family, with the adult parents guiding the activities of the group in a
division-of-labor system in which the female predominates primarily in such activities as
pup care and defense and the male primarily during foraging and food-provisioning and
the travels associated with them."
A dog is, through a gross series of genetic engineering, a wolf. Instinctively, it still holds (generally, for the most part) to the same sort of behaviour. There is great controversy about Cesar Milan and his use of dominance to improve the behaviour of troubled dogs. I agree with his methods, in the way that they are used; meaning, within that context, they are correct. You have put the dog in an unnatural setting, so the "correct" thing to do is no longer relevant. The "correct" thing to do is to put the dog back into a familial environment, one based on cooperation and teamwork. One with shared goals. One where you spend the majority of your time together.
The most well-adjusted, happiest dogs I've ever seen are those on a farm that work day in and day out with their companions. That one is "alpha" is not in the least bit relevant; the partnership thrives best when they work as a team. I can work as a team with people that are senior, and junior, to me. That doesn't mean someone on the team is the alpha; it means they are the most senior. I do not have to beat my father in combat to be able to mate with my wife - we are a family. I look up to and respect my father's opinions and advice, as he is my elder. *That* is how wolves behave in nature.
Current dog pop-psychology is that bad behavior should not be positively reinforced, without recognizing that the bad behavior isn't from the anxious dog that pees while your gone and barks when you get home...the bad behavior is from *you*. The dog is a social creature, and you're only giving it access to its family for a couple hours a day. How would you react in the same situation? It barks not to get attention, but because you are not giving it. To give it attention when it barks isn't positively reinforcing bad behaviour, it is instead recognizing that the dog is correcting your behaviour.
Sarah has argued that my methods for behaviour modification in children appear to be at odds with this idea. I disagree; when a child misbehaves, it is horrible to withhold attention from the child. I never did that, nor would I ever. Instead, I actively do exactly what modern pop-psychology says I should not; I withhold approval. I let a child that misbehaves know that they have made me sad, that they have hurt me. I still give them affection and attention. That method has proven to me to have far greater short-term, and long-term, benefits. It also helps me sleep better at night knowing I no longer looked at the child, or the barking dog, as an annoyance; I looked at it as someone deserving respect. I acknowledged that it isn't by default them with the behavior issue, it might in fact be me instead.
If you do not have a lot of time to devote to someone other than yourself, if you cannot give of that time and attention, then you should not have a dog nor a child. get a cat! I love cats, and have always considered myself a cat person. Instinctively, naturally, cats are loners. They are not social. They can be, and are, very affectionate. However, they do not require constant attention.
That's my argument.
The basis for the issue is that the currently prevalent view of wolf behaviour is based on wolves in captivity that aren't even related to each other. lest we forget that Freud formed his ideas that all men want to have sex with their mothers not by observing large groups of men, but instead by observing a small group of pregnant women. I hold such a high professional disdain for most psychologists and behaviourists because they choose to hold in high regard those who study the unnatural, and then infer from that study what the behaviour of the norm is. There is no alpha in a wolf pack, and I do not, in any way, want to have sex with my mother.
From: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/alstat/alpst.htm
"Labeling a high-ranking wolf alpha emphasizes its rank in a dominance hierarchy. However, in natural wolf packs, the alpha male or female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none.
Thus, calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. Any parent is dominant to its young offspring, so "alpha" adds no information. Why not refer to an alpha female as the female parent, the breeding female, the matriarch, or simply the mother? Such a designation emphasizes not the animal's dominant status, which is trivial information, but its role as pack progenitor, which is critical information."
Or read the best bit about this, at: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/resources/mech_pdfs/267alphastatus_english.pdf
"Abstract: The prevailing view of a wolf (Canis lupus) pack is that of a group of
individuals ever vying for dominance but held in check by the "alpha" pair, the alpha
male and the alpha female. Most research on the social dynamics of wolf packs, however,
has been conducted on non-natural assortments of captive wolves. Here I describe the
wolf-pack social order as it occurs in nature, discuss the alpha concept and social
dominance and submission, and present data on the precise relationships among members
in free-living packs based on a literature review and 13 summers of observations of
wolves on Ellesmere Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. I conclude that the typical
wolf pack is a family, with the adult parents guiding the activities of the group in a
division-of-labor system in which the female predominates primarily in such activities as
pup care and defense and the male primarily during foraging and food-provisioning and
the travels associated with them."
A dog is, through a gross series of genetic engineering, a wolf. Instinctively, it still holds (generally, for the most part) to the same sort of behaviour. There is great controversy about Cesar Milan and his use of dominance to improve the behaviour of troubled dogs. I agree with his methods, in the way that they are used; meaning, within that context, they are correct. You have put the dog in an unnatural setting, so the "correct" thing to do is no longer relevant. The "correct" thing to do is to put the dog back into a familial environment, one based on cooperation and teamwork. One with shared goals. One where you spend the majority of your time together.
The most well-adjusted, happiest dogs I've ever seen are those on a farm that work day in and day out with their companions. That one is "alpha" is not in the least bit relevant; the partnership thrives best when they work as a team. I can work as a team with people that are senior, and junior, to me. That doesn't mean someone on the team is the alpha; it means they are the most senior. I do not have to beat my father in combat to be able to mate with my wife - we are a family. I look up to and respect my father's opinions and advice, as he is my elder. *That* is how wolves behave in nature.
Current dog pop-psychology is that bad behavior should not be positively reinforced, without recognizing that the bad behavior isn't from the anxious dog that pees while your gone and barks when you get home...the bad behavior is from *you*. The dog is a social creature, and you're only giving it access to its family for a couple hours a day. How would you react in the same situation? It barks not to get attention, but because you are not giving it. To give it attention when it barks isn't positively reinforcing bad behaviour, it is instead recognizing that the dog is correcting your behaviour.
Sarah has argued that my methods for behaviour modification in children appear to be at odds with this idea. I disagree; when a child misbehaves, it is horrible to withhold attention from the child. I never did that, nor would I ever. Instead, I actively do exactly what modern pop-psychology says I should not; I withhold approval. I let a child that misbehaves know that they have made me sad, that they have hurt me. I still give them affection and attention. That method has proven to me to have far greater short-term, and long-term, benefits. It also helps me sleep better at night knowing I no longer looked at the child, or the barking dog, as an annoyance; I looked at it as someone deserving respect. I acknowledged that it isn't by default them with the behavior issue, it might in fact be me instead.
If you do not have a lot of time to devote to someone other than yourself, if you cannot give of that time and attention, then you should not have a dog nor a child. get a cat! I love cats, and have always considered myself a cat person. Instinctively, naturally, cats are loners. They are not social. They can be, and are, very affectionate. However, they do not require constant attention.
That's my argument.