[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | | Home]

Sup /an/, I'm sure you guys get this thread all the time,

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 48
Thread images: 1

File: cesar-milan.jpg (42KB, 512x512px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
42KB, 512x512px
Sup /an/,

I'm sure you guys get this thread all the time, but I need to know.

Does this guy actually know what he is talking about or is he just a meme? How much of what he says about dogs and pack mentality true? Thanks
Our behiourist believes in pack behaviour in dogs. Whether or not it actually exists I cant argue with the results. Dingoes are domestic dogs gone feral and they live in packs.
Pack mentality has been debunked decades ago. Wolves form family units like humans. Dogs keep their cub mentality.
It's not about dominance.
Positive reinforcement is the only method that works, well unless your goal is to end up with an anxious, frustrated, inhibited dog, then do follow his advice.
He's a farce.
>Pack mentality has been debunked decades ago.
No, it hasn't. That's a stupid statement, and you can observe pack behaviors at any given dog park on any given day.
>Wolves form family units like humans.
True...in the wild.
>Dogs keep their cub mentality.
You mean "pup" mentality, and it depends on the dog, the breed, and training.
>It's not about dominance.
It's about LEADERSHIP and assertiveness. A jack russel terrier can be, and usually is, more assertive than a great dane, which means that big pussy dane will look to the little rat terrier for leadership and guidance.
>Positive reinforcement is the only method that works
Bullshit. Positive reinforcement is one aspect of, essentially, a 4 part approach to teaching espoused by B.F. Skinner, and part of his "operant conditioning". You can successfully teach using any one of his 4 approaches, or by using a combination of all 4. Positive reinforcement, positive punishment, negative reinforcement, and negative punishment have all been shown to be effective approaches to teaching / conditioning.
>He's a farce.
Only to tumblrina's that get upset when he employs positive punishment approaches.

The funny thing about all the emo bitches that champion positive reinforcement is that the professionals that use it, like dolphin and whale trainers, also employ "cruel" techniques to make it more effective, like food denial, or social isolation.

Milan understands canine behavior far better than 99.9% of the emo land whale chicks that think "clicker training" is the only way to teach a dog how to properly behave.

If you've ever worked with working dogs, you'd understand the importance of earning the respect of the dog as its leader, because male working dogs WILL challenge your leadership, and if you're not willing to check it and show it that you can and WILL "dominate" that fucker, it won't respect you, and it won't work for you, because you don't earn a dogs respect by giving it treats.
this ^^

>If you've ever worked with working dogs, you'd understand the importance of earning the respect of the dog as its leader, because male working dogs WILL challenge your leadership, and if you're not willing to check it and show it that you can and WILL "dominate" that fucker, it won't respect you, and it won't work for you, because you don't earn a dogs respect by giving it treats

You're all retarded. You don't have to dominate male working dogs (or any dog for that matter) at all, you need to be a close friend to it from it being a puppy and step in with reasonable discipline now and then.

The reason retarded people think you need to dominate dogs is because they're not stimulating the dogs mind or body enough so the dog acts out and challenges you.

I've been around pigdogs most of my life and not once has one "challenged me for dominance" or any of that shit because they're tired and well stimulated, even the smarter crosses with alot of collie blood.

Pig dogs arent usually crossed with typically dominate breeds or what I refer to as rank driven breeds, ie Rotties.
Next up:
Another indoor vs outdoor cats thread.
I can hardly wait.
>You don't have to dominate male working dogs

There's lots of retards that think "dominating" means beating the shit out of a dog any time it doesn't do something you want. That's not how it works.

"Dominating" simply means asserting yourself, and you don't have to beat the shit out of a dog to assert yourself. You can assert yourself with your voice, posture, or by simply looking at the dog. That's what Milan tries to get people to understand, but emo chicks, and idiots, always seem to confuse that with physical abuse.

Unlike your pig dogs, working dogs in the protection world WILL indeed challenge their handlers from time to time, because the handlers don't get the opportunity to raise them from a pup, like you do. In these cases, if the handler doesn't assert his dominance over the dog, the dog might very well try to bite the shit out of the handler to assert HIS dominance over the handler. When a dog does decide to bite the shit out of you, if you let it go unchecked, that dog will never respect you, will bite you again in the future, and won't work for you.
His stuff works for short-term treatment of emergency cases. What you'll be doing in the long-term to maintain good behavior is very different.
>You can assert yourself with your voice, posture, or by simply looking at the dog.

This is very important for any dog. You need to project an aura that says "I am in control, I will keep you safe, this is my house, you are a guest here"

There is no violence at all. And this generally happens automatically with people who have are happy, with good self-esteem, and take pride in themselves. A lot of people with dog problems are people who are not happy (to put it vaguely).

As they always say, no one will respect you if you don't respect yourself, and that's true for dogs. I have 2 giant-breed dogs that act like fucktards around my wife because she doesn't have any self-esteem and exudes a weak, follower aura. They are completely different with me. When I walk, they get out of the way. When I sit, they sit. When I have food, they stare from a distance but don't bark or beg. It's night and day with how they act around her when I'm not in the room. She can't handle them.
>A lot of people with dog problems are people who are...

Submissive, unassertive, cowardly morons that would break down and cry if somebody raised their voice to them, let alone put their hands on them, and they attach that same mental and emotional weakness to their own pets, and children, in most cases.

They're the kind of people that tell their pets and children to "stop", and don't do a g'damn thing when they are ignored...except maybe say "stop" again.

They are the reason that ill behaved pets, and children alike, exist.
it's mostly in how you raise them. I got my first dog about a year ago, he's well trained, but since I never did anything about biting when he was a youngin' he kept biting for a couple months. He never barked until he got bigger than my cats and now barks at them and other dogs that aren't playing with him. Put him in a 5 minute timeout in a dark room to chill out, he kept doing it, but instead of barking incessantly he stopped in about 30 seconds. I don't think dominance has anything to do with it, it's about socializing your dog and putting up basic boundaries. He was barking at my cat and as soon as I looked at him he laid down, knowing what would happen. Dogs have relatively basic psychology, if you can't tell them how you feel, just show them.
I think someone brought it up ITT, but if your dog is out of control, he's literally just bored. See if he tears up your house after a 30-90 minute walk. He's not trying to show you "who's boss" he's trying to do something and you're ruining his life.
But noone is saying you shouldn't appear as an authority.

They are saying you shouldn't use cruel techniques with scientifically flawed backing.
basically this. he works with dogs that are already fucked up and employs methods that work in the short term but not in the long.

you will fuck up a dog if you try and train one from a puppy with his methods. it'll grow up to behave out of fear and then will lash out when the fear eventually overwhelms it.

at least on his show he always tells people to exercise their dogs and they can see that most of the worst behavior problems are fixed by actually meeting their dogs' energy needs instead of leaving them alone in the yard all day.
His flooding technique is awful. It's great for views; it's suspenseful, it's risky, and it forces results in a short amount of time. However, the next time the owners have to recreate it, it will be even harder to do than last time. Flooding more often than not creates an even larger fear, and before Caesar I don't think I have ever seen it used as a form of training with licensed trainers, I've only ever heard it be used negatively

I have not watched enough of the show besides that to comment. His shit seems to be on during the day when I'm working, i only seen like two and a half episodes.
Whenever someone talks to me about dominance theory I just think of how sad it is that they should be so insecure around dogs.

Dogs are bred for being docile. The instinct to follow and be lead is so strong anyone can handle a dog.

I've seen little 5 year old girls lead dogs around on leads without the dog pulling. Its not presence its just being well-trained.

If your dog doesn't respond to other people its simply because the dog has only been reinforced by you and has only ever learned to listen to you or its commands haven't been trained into it enough.

I've worked at dog daycares for years and I've never seen individual dogs have any sort of pack mentality or structure. They're 100% of the time random individuals that do whatever they feel like to each other and they will always always always follow the human in the yard. You can place any human out there, they will follow that person. The only person they'll follow more is the person they know better or the person that sends them home (rewards them most highly).

Its been shown dogs have had the desire to think for themselves bred out of them for the most part. [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/dogs-but-not-wolves-use-humans-as-tools/]

Working with dogs is literally just common sense. I've been able to control dogs while tired, stressed, pissed, bored, excited, upset, my emotions literally had no effect on how much they'd listen or not listen to me. The only time my emotions have effected a dog was my own. But, it has never interfered with the dogs ability to listen to me, simply how stressed or calm she was while she was doing so.
>Dogs are bred for being docile. The instinct to follow and be lead is so strong anyone can handle a dog.

... First off, there is not some sort of global-initiative to breed only the sweetest dogs. People breed whatever the fuck they want, and 90% of the time it's not done on purpose.

Secondly, thinking all dogs are pushovers that live only to please humans. Geez. The enormous variances in the levels of desired independence among dog breeds ... it is crazy. You can't put a work dog in the same category as a family dog in terms of stubbornness and independence. A lot of work dogs, like herd guardians, are bred specifically to tell humans to fuck off and let them do their job.
>There is not some sort of global-initiative to breed only the sweetest dogs
No, but there was 15,000 years ago when the ancestors of dogs were selectively bred to be obedient and friendly towards humans. I don't think that person was talking about the present day. The domestication of dogs means that literally all dogs instinctively obey humans, though the level of independence varies between dogs.
>it'll grow up to behave out of fear

That's just you projecting your own emotions on the dog, which is what a lot of tumblrina's and idiots do.
desu, out of one animal trying fruitlessly for however long and another using all the tools it can to get what it want, I think the second's the smartest.
He's a meme trainer.
Some things he does are valid ways to train a dog--like keeping the dog abreast while walking. But that tsst tsst shit he does is cringeworthy.

To be fair, if it's done wrong, it does cause fear and trust issues. People hear those terms and don't really understand what they mean. It means there will be no "come here" commands. The dog will not move by your will. It will be very suspicious if you try to trick it into going into a room, or reach for its collar during a tense moment. If the dog gets on the bed, you can not just tell it to get off because it doesn't if that is how to please you or if it's a trap. A highly intelligent dog that does not trust you is a fucking nightmare like you wouldn't believe. It is a constant reminder that dogs are not idiots and you will not conquer their independence by any means if they don't trust you.

Once the trust is gone, it is very very hard to get back. And honestly, I've never seen it regained. People just have to learn to deal with it and handle the dog with kid-gloves to regain what little loyalty they can.
His techniques work, they are just really, really outdated. He could accomplish the exact same thing as he does with much more positive methods.
>To be fair, if it's done wrong, it does cause fear and trust issues.

First, I bet you don't even know what the "positive" in positive reinforcement means, do you?

Second, this is yet another example of a person projecting their emotions and feelings onto the animal. Dogs aren't as mentally and physically weak and fragile as people are.

Dog mothers, and dog packs, pretty much use positive punishment exclusively to train the younger members of the pack how to behave. Mom nips the pups when they bite too hard on a nipple during feeding, or when they bite too hard during play, or when she just wants them to fuck off so she can be alone for a bit. Older dogs do the same thing, and between getting their little asses bit by the older dogs, and the growling threat displays when they do other stupid shit, the young pups learn the rules of the pack and how to behave, and they eventually grow up to be normal, well mannered, adult dogs. Amazingly enough, they manage to do this without the "fear" and "trust" issues idiot people think such a training environment breeds.

"Fear" and "trust" issues develop because of shitty leadership, regardless of any given training approach.
>"Fear" and "trust" issues develop because of shitty leadership

So you just typed out like 195 words arguing against the post, then finished it off by admitting the post was correct - that when done wrong, it causes fear and trust issues.

Good job, debate team captain.
>then finished it off by admitting the post was correct

The post was NOT correct, though, because it tries to attack and single out positive punishment as the sole approach that can create "fear and trust" issues, which isn't the case.
As someone who has had multiple dogs and bred them I can assure you you're full of shit. Yeah don't beat the shit of your dog, but you do need to punish them for behaving badly. Usually isolating them in a kennel or outside can do the trick. If the dogs being violent then you stop it. My boxer tried to kill my brothers cat, one quick kick to the ribs made her drop the cat and never bother it again. Later that night she curled up in bed with me and she was fine. I could walk her without a leash and she was always happy to see or be around me.
The main thing that dogs crave is consistency. If you can't be consistent with your training, boundaries, and punishments, what the fuck do you expect the dog to understand?

It needs to know what is and is not acceptable under your roof. Discipline needs to be fair but harsh. And you need to be there as often as possible to enforce those rules. Anyone with any sort of full-time job or career should not own a dog for this reason.
don't act like a smug cunt when someone asks a question
>Anyone with any sort of full-time job or career should not own a dog for this reason.

This tbqh. If you don't have the time and energy to dedicate to a dog, get a fish. Dogs have physical, emotional, and mental needs that are not satisfied by only "after work" time.

You're using that word again, I don't think you know what it means
>meme trainer

Seriously? Back to >>>/s4s/
People worry too much about this stuff. Here's what's up: You will fuck up your first dog. You just will. No level of reading can prepare you. reading will help you avoid some issues, but only after the fact once the behavior crops up and you google it. Some things you just have to experience on your own. So get something very forgiving, average size, and average energy.

Your 2nd dog, you will pretty much nail perfectly - because it is very, very easy once you've experienced it once (8weeks to adult) and filled in the gaps with reading. Google is always there for more in-depth questions
My first dog was a German Shepherd and although he turned out okay in the end, I have some regrets. Should've got a golden retriever.
Personally, I love Cesar. The basics that he teaches:

>exercise, exercise, exercise
>if you don't trust your dog, it won't trust you
>correction, not punishment
>if for a second, you are fearful or not in control of a situation (walking your dog around other dogs) the dog will step up to "take control of whatever is making you fearful".
>did we mention exercise?
>dogs are at their core, no matter what breed, are dogs.

Reading his books explains his ideas better than watching it on TV. Most cases on TV are because a) no exercise or b) the owners are like >>2166383
>correction, not punishment

Meh. I know a lot of people on /an/ agree with me when I say this isn't always the right answer. In my personal experience, you do need *some* scolding/punishment. They need to know what they're doing is wrong, not just what you want them to do instead.

For example - they get on the couch, you redirect them to the floor and then give them a treat for getting down ... okay, they never learned what the actual problem was. Only that "off" means to hit the floor and get a treat.

I did my best with positive reinforcement and it failed at every turn without a punishment component. It didn't stop bad behavior. It just made getting the dog to stop doing it easier. But if you want it to stop completely, the dog needs to associate getting on the couch with something bad.
>It just made getting the dog to stop doing it easier.

Bad wording. I meant that it meant getting the dog off the couch easier, but didn't stop him from getting on it in the first place. (example)
I agree with you on this. I feel a dog needs to know some behaviour is wrong, so it shouldn't do that behaviour.

I saw a video once about learning a dog to not bark at other dogs. the solution was to distract the dog with toys/treats, so the dog would learn that you're much more fun than barking at other dogs. maybe that would work, but to me that just feels wrong, because the dog doesn't know it was doing something bad.

normally i don't like comparing dog behaviour with human behaviour, but my comparison to that would be that your kid would be outside bullying other kids, and you call that kid inside to play a videogame. the kid might learn that videogames are more fun than bullying, but you never tought them that bullying is bad
dogs have a hard time comprehending that something is "wrong". they can learn that an action is undesirable and doing it = negative (ie shaking a tin full of pennies when the dog barks) but applying morals to a dog is fucking stupid
What I mean is, you don't have to hit the dog to let it know the couch is off limits.

Using your example:
From Cesar's point of view, you don't punish the dog for getting on the couch, you claim the couch from the moment you bring the dog home.

You don't reward the dog for getting off the couch since the dog isn't supposed to be on there in the first place. Now, if sometimes it's ok to be on the couch, you would reward the dog for getting off at your request, otherwise it's ok.

Even with going with your style of training, you still don't have to hit the dog. You could make an unpleasant sound as >>2172015 mentioned the ol' can of coins. Or like the sound Cesar make. Yes, it is annoying to us and unpleasant for the dog.

And thank you for a calm response. Very refreshing.
Also, I know you didn't mention hitting a dog in your post. If it seems like I'm implying that, I'm not. Just an example of punishment.

Nah. With the refinement of e-collars over the years, there is no excuse to ever lay a hand on your dog. It is insanely counterproductive not only because you're hitting the dog like an asshole, but because the dog KNOWS you're hitting it.

With e-collars (and all of them these days allow you to adjust the level of static shock), you can stealthily zap a dog without them knowing you were involved, so it saves your brownie points and also makes the dog focus on his behavior and surroundings instead of on you to find the problem. I use a 35/100 on my dog, which I can zap myself with all day long and not feel any strong inclination to move it (feels like licking a weak 9v batttery), but it spooks the hell out of the dog with my wife's underwear in his mouth.

I only needed the collar for 3 days to correct 1.) eating laundry, 2.) jumping on bed, 3.) jumping on my son. Every once and a while the dog needs a refresher course for a day or 2. It's much better than smacking your dog for a month until they realize what's they're doing wrong.

We chose e-collars because our dogs are giant-breed which adds a layer of difficulty to keeping them in check. I can't say we'd have done the same with a cocker spaniel.
>dogs have a hard time comprehending that something is "wrong".


Observe a litter of pups feeding on a bitch and see what happens when one of them bites too hard on her nipples and gets nipped by the bitch. How many times do you think that pup needs to get nipped again before realizing it can't be chewing on moms teets?

Dogs are smart enough to learn and understand which behaviors are "wrong" in their pack, as long as they are taught by the pack. It all depends on the consequences they experience when they perform the behavior.
>We chose e-collars because our dogs are giant-breed which adds a layer of difficulty to keeping them in check.

Nothing like an obnoxious, untrained, undisciplined, 150 pound "puppy".....
>obnoxious, untrained, undisciplined, 150 pound "puppy".


Right now, we have a 7 month old that is 89 pounds (purebred Pyrenees). It is the most ridiculous shit I've ever seen. This behemoth rolling around on the dog, whimpering and crying, because you stopped petting him. Casually hopping up onto the 3' high bed like "Oh, hey guys!". I'm naked in the shower because he's too big to keep in the bathtub, trying, to wash his junk, and he can't keep his tongue out of my ear. I'm all like "There's a time and place!"

When you come home with your hands full, and he's all happy you're finally there, and jumps on you and knocks you down to the ground. When he's tall enough to get his head in any trash can, toy box, or laundry bin, and knows how to open them. When he is tall enough and smart enough to open any door that's not deadbolted. When you can wake you up with his snoring. When he breaks off cabinet doors or knocks over end tables while playing with an ice cube.

Shit is crazy, man. Enormous puppies are no joke. Neither is behavior correction and making sure you don't go "too far" cause fear/trust issues or something. You don't want that in a big dog.

I pitty the dumbass that uses direct violence against a giant breed puppy. Good luck with that.
Thread posts: 48
Thread images: 1

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.