Catherine, I do agree with some of the points you make. Maybe a little too much is made of drives. And I was very slightly offended at the idea of my dog doing things for me out of "pack drive". I also would like to think of myself as my dog's human leader, and him as my cooperative partner. But whatever you call it, whatever label you use, does it really make a difference in how we handle & relate to our dogs? I believe Josh asked a sincere question. We still don't know what methods and beliefs guide your handling of your own dogs. What are your goals in training them? If your only goal is to have dogs that are easy to live with and to have fun with them (my goals), then maybe you don't need to know about or use "drives" to train them. On the other hand, the two dogs you have could become a handful! But look at the people we are discussing this with. Some of them train several dogs per day. It's probably very difficult for them to get into the head of someone who has a couple of dogs, and limited needs or uses for these dogs. Most of the trainers on this board are very specialized in their field of training. They must find ways to meet certain needs. They must have the ability to "motivate" the dog. They don't have the luxury to build a personal relationship with each dog they train, and motivate it to work for them. So what if they train their dogs through "drive"? This is a tremendous improvement on training strictly through compulsion. It's all about motivating the dog to do what you need him/her to do. Would you be more motivated by a job that pays 10,000 per year, or a job that pays 50,000 per year? Are you more motivated to work days or nights? Are you more motivated to eat Chinese or Italian? Well dogs have these differences too. I don't see anything wrong with using knowledge of these differences to get what they want out of a dog. If a dog loves a ball, why NOT use that to get the best out of him? Ya I've seen obsessed dogs who will play with complete strangers just because there is a ball involved. I'd much rather the dog did things for me because he loves me. Take a 5 year old child. Would he rather sit in the house with his mom, or go out and play with his friends? Go out & play, ofcourse! As a mom are we gonna get all broken up about it? Ofcourse not! That's the nature of a 5 yr old child. Well, it's the same with dogs. There are things they like to do. If you can use that to accomplish a goal, more power to you. Now offer the 5 yr old child something more exciting to do with you than what he's doing with his friends, THEN what's he gonna choose. So a dog trainer is constantly turning over in his head ways to motivate a dog to perform. So what if he wants to call this "drives". If you don't need to show your dog you are the pack leader, fine. But the day may come when you do need these methods. I hope it doesn't. I can relate with you about asking questions, and giving answers on this board. Sometimes I feel like people might think "what does litte old me need to know these things for with my one little Sheltie?" He'll sure never be a PSD! But I want to know cause I want to know, cause I want to know. For me, it keeps a dream alive to learn about dog training. Who knows, maybe someday my dream of having a GSD will come true, and I'll have a real need for this knowledge. So what DO you do with your dogs if not these traditional methods? I already admire you for handling a Dutch Shepherd and a Malinois.

Catherine, I do agree with some of the points you make. Maybe a little too much is made of drives. And I was very slightly offended at the idea of my dog doing things for me out of "pack drive". I also would like to think of myself as my dog's human leader, and him as my cooperative partner. But whatever you call it, whatever label you use, does it really make a difference in how we handle & relate to our dogs? I believe Josh asked a sincere question. We still don't know what methods and beliefs guide your handling of your own dogs. What are your goals in training them? If your only goal is to have dogs that are easy to live with and to have fun with them (my goals), then maybe you don't need to know about or use "drives" to train them. On the other hand, the two dogs you have could become a handful! But look at the people we are discussing this with. Some of them train several dogs per day. It's probably very difficult for them to get into the head of someone who has a couple of dogs, and limited needs or uses for these dogs. Most of the trainers on this board are very specialized in their field of training. They must find ways to meet certain needs. They must have the ability to "motivate" the dog. They don't have the luxury to build a personal relationship with each dog they train, and motivate it to work for them. So what if they train their dogs through "drive"? This is a tremendous improvement on training strictly through compulsion. It's all about motivating the dog to do what you need him/her to do. Would you be more motivated by a job that pays 10,000 per year, or a job that pays 50,000 per year? Are you more motivated to work days or nights? Are you more motivated to eat Chinese or Italian? Well dogs have these differences too. I don't see anything wrong with using knowledge of these differences to get what they want out of a dog. If a dog loves a ball, why NOT use that to get the best out of him? Ya I've seen obsessed dogs who will play with complete strangers just because there is a ball involved. I'd much rather the dog did things for me because he loves me. Take a 5 year old child. Would he rather sit in the house with his mom, or go out and play with his friends? Go out & play, ofcourse! As a mom are we gonna get all broken up about it? Ofcourse not! That's the nature of a 5 yr old child. Well, it's the same with dogs. There are things they like to do. If you can use that to accomplish a goal, more power to you. Now offer the 5 yr old child something more exciting to do with you than what he's doing with his friends, THEN what's he gonna choose. So a dog trainer is constantly turning over in his head ways to motivate a dog to perform. So what if he wants to call this "drives". If you don't need to show your dog you are the pack leader, fine. But the day may come when you do need these methods. I hope it doesn't. I can relate with you about asking questions, and giving answers on this board. Sometimes I feel like people might think "what does litte old me need to know these things for with my one little Sheltie?" He'll sure never be a PSD! But I want to know cause I want to know, cause I want to know. For me, it keeps a dream alive to learn about dog training. Who knows, maybe someday my dream of having a GSD will come true, and I'll have a real need for this knowledge. So what DO you do with your dogs if not these traditional methods? I already admire you for handling a Dutch Shepherd and a Malinois.

Catherine: I learned a long time ago (the hard way) that opinions and advise are just that. They are not always right or wrong. With that said I find some of your ideas and your way of thinking to be very interesting. I too would like to know some of the specific ways you go about training your dogs. I'm always interested in learning new or differant ways of doing things. I guess I believe that life is like school. The last day of school will be my last day of life. Your methods may be usefull if not now then maybe later. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Catherine, Now I am curious. If you have a DS and Mal, you know first hand what they are capable of. I would like to hear your methods of training. I really now do think this is just a matter of semantics. How old were your dogs when you got them, were they previously trained? Did you do the training?
Are they pets or do you have them working?
I'm very curious <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

The following post may sound sort of woo-woo, but here goes:

As a newbie, I'm not here to dispute training methods with any of the more experienced people on this board. I'm here to learn. But I think I can see a middle way between Catherine and some of the others. It involves a concept that C.S. Lewis called "transposition," which is basically the concept that "lower-order" physiological states or emotional responses can (and must) form the basis of higher-order behaviors.

He uses an illustration from Samuel Pepys, the 17th century English diarist, who noted that the wonderful feeling he got in his stomach from hearing some "ravishing flute musick" was precisely the same feeling he got when he was about to be sick. I think a bit of introspection will yield a similar experience for most of you. (For instance, for me, the feeling I get when the curtain goes up at a play or opera is precisely the same _physiological_ response as I get at the top of the roller coaster: a kind of tingly, gone-in-the-stomach feeling. The difference is that in the first case, I know I'm going to have an intense, intellectual/emotional experience, and in the second, I know I'm going to die! <g>

Anyway, the point is that as animals, we have necessarily a limited number of physiological responses, which must therefore serve many different uses to support the complexity made possible by our intelligence.

I think it may be the same with our dogs. They are definitely pack and rank oriented, and they definitely have what some of us call drives, and in the wild, that would represent the sum of their possible behaviors. But our domestication of them--their association with the more complex (i.e. capable of a wider range of responses) human nature--calls forth more complex behaviors that must nonetheless be supported by these basic drives or behaviors.

So, does my dog see me as another dog? Of course not. Does he see me as his pack leader, his alpha? Frankly, I don't know. But the important thing is, he acts as if he does. In other words, the lower-order behavior we call "pack drive" can be used to support the higher-order behavior we call a "well-trained dog."

One could even say my dog "loves" me, as long as one is clear that he must use lower-order behaviors (such as "submission" in its many manifestations) to express that, and some form of "pack drive" to even represent it to himself (i.e. think about it, whatever that means for a dog)

But frankly, apart from the purposes of philosophical discussions like this, I'm perfectly comfortable talking about drives and such. They get results. My trainer uses them to train me, and I use the understanding they make possible to train Oka. Whether you consider them terms of art or an description of actual reality (whatever the hell that is), isn't important.

So, FWIW, that's my (considerably inflated!) two cents.

Dave,
My definition of drive, from my *Elements of Temperament* article and a series of texts I did for Harcourt: *An internal mechanism that pushes the dog into taking action*.
As for whether dogs can *love*, dogs (and wolves, for that matter) have shown altruisitic behaviors, that's pretty hi order stuff (how many humans do you know that do that)?

Dave, that is DEEP. And I think you've hit on a lot of pertinent stuff that most trainers wouldn't feel comfortable trying to address. They may know it on a gut level, but it's too abstract to put into words.

I think what you have tapped into is the theoretical underpinning of drive theory. For my money (two cents?) the most important thing you hit on is that a dog uses various forms of submissive behavior to express "love" (or whatever) to its handler. The flip side of this is, of course, that a dog will use various forms of dominant behavior to communicate a challenge to its handler.

For those willing to think about what you've said (Catherine?)--you've said a lot.

Pete Felknor

Are dogs social creatures? Do they have an innate instinct to live in social groups? Yes.

Do dogs accept humans as part of their social group? Yes.

Why does it matter if this is called "pack drive" or some kind of "special bond"? It's the same thing.

Some people do have a hard time with the idea that their dog "loves" them because that dog has a survival instinct that compels him or her to bond with a social group. They feel that this somehow cheapens the bond that they have with their dog. That's the part of some of us that tends to anthropomorphize animals, to project our human values and emotions onto them.

One could easily break human behavior down to survival instincts and drives as well. For example, the love that a mother feels for her child assures that child's survival. Does that make the love of a mother for her child any less meaningful? I don't think so. Why does the idea of canine behavior being a result of innate instincts bother some people so much? I think it's because they interpret that as a lack of deeper meaning, but I assert that that is a personal, subjective perception. You give meaning to what you choose to give meaning to. It does not change scientific fact.

That is a very useful definition, Joy, IMHO. BTW, I've found your drive article useful, as well.

Pete, I think the submissive behavior thing is what most dog people will find most illustrative of the theory of transposition. The point is that dogs basically don't have any other way of expressing themselves; they use what they have, and it's up to us to understand what they're saying.

I firmly believe that the act of training a dog is basically a conversation/relationship with another moral agent, albeit one less complex than myself. I think you'll find agreement, although not expressed that way, among many trainers. For instance, I believe Koehler said: "A dog has the right to the consequences of its own actions." And my own trainer, David Deleissegues, says something like: "The degree of correction needed to elicit the desired behavior is the decision of the dog."

J Parker, I think you've said something very important. The belief that the fact that something is explainable in terms of simpler things somehow denigrates it is one of the fundamental errors of our zeitgeist--it's call reductionism. And it has been increasingly discredited by the sciences of complexity and concepts like "emerging order."

But I'm getting more than a bit off-topic here....

JParker wrote:

"To say that a dog considers you as a pack member is not the same as saying the dog thinks you are a dog. It simply refers to the way that dogs view the world, with its family, or social group, as it's pack, and within that social group there is a heirarchy."


BINGO!!!!! Nice job JParker!