Alpha and Dominance over used and misunderstood?

Dogsareme · 06-28-2006, 04:02 PM

When you hear the words 'ALPHA' what comes to mind?

What about 'Dominance'?

A while back its was popular, and with some people still is, to grab your dog by the scruff, flip him over on his back, hold him down and GROWL at him, to assert dominance.

In your opinion what do you think of when you think of a dog who is dominante and a dog who is the alpha.

Do you find the terms over used and misunderstood?

I'll give my opinion when after I read a few

D.Schäferhund · 06-28-2006, 04:08 PM

Well yeah, they are overused and misunderstood.

dominant: dominat is a dog that is currently stronger (personality wise) then the one that is just present. a different one might dominate the present one.

alpha is the leadanimal, the one that makes descitions

thee word been misused to justify rough handling, but this really isn't the case.
It kinda buggs me that when you explain something with these words it is automtically assumed that you upuse mistreat and rough handle your animals. that ticks me off!!!

while i think you can't over use them when you se them right interpreted and understood, it is important that this word comes back to mind....

Quote:

... hold him down and GROWL at him, to assert dominace.

that has absolutly nothimng to do with beeing dominant, this shows weakness to the dog and inflicts fear, that doesn't show dominace at all!!!!!

***Carrie*** · 06-28-2006, 04:37 PM

You're right. Those words are so over used and misused....to the point where people asign every conceivable behavior to them....they bring in pack theory as though our dogs and we are wild wolves living out in the woods. In fact, they even go so far as to assume that wolves do things that they don't. Alpha wolves hardly do a thing most of the time. And they certainly don't preside over the others at all times or with all things. Some dogs aren't even derived from pack animals. There are lines which trace back to solitary, feral dogs.

Our dogs are domestic and of course have some of those old instincts still intact. But they have also been genetically evolved to live with humans. They are a far cry from their wild ancestors.

Of course they need to be guided and directed, boundaries and rules in place. They need to be taught to live with us. But they also need to express their own personalities and learn using scientific learning methods, not be coerced, intimidated and forced into behavior we want. There are other ways.

So, when I hear the word "dominant" I think of people who believe in extreme domination and power over their dogs, making them behave out of avoidance of a consequence rather than making them behave in order to earn a living, which IS what is natural to any living thing.

When I hear "alpha," although it does technically mean the first, or the one who leads, it has a conotation which has been over used, where by the one who leads should act as though they're a wolf or wild dog. This, I do not buy. Although dog body language and certain other communication should definitely come into play when interacting with our dogs, they too have evolved to learn to understand some of our ways and science and learning behavior is shown to include both their ways and our ways... and in harmony with us. There is no need to dramatically over power a dog until it has hardly any spirit or personality left...actually a toned down version of a dog....and that is what I think of when I hear words like "dominance" and "alpha." (not necessarily mistreatment, such as alpha rolls and rough handling) I would really like to see some variation in terminology.

flyndog · 06-28-2006, 07:58 PM

An term "alpha" (not used by wolf people anymore) describes the animal that controls the resources.
The term "dominance" is a function of relationship.
Both are misused.

A debate does not consist of "what's your opinion and I'll tell you mine", but of arguing one's position at the beginning statement.

Raised By Wolves · 06-28-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyndog

An term "alpha" (not used by wolf people anymore) describes the animal that controls the resources.
The term "dominance" is a function of relationship.
Both are misused.

A debate does not consist of "what's your opinion and I'll tell you mine", but of arguing one's position at the beginning statement.

My "position" is that the term "dominant" describes both a natural born personality type, AND (not shouting

) a part of a canine language which communicates status within a social group.

Lots to debate on this topic! But, I'm soooo pooped right now my eyes are crossed.

***Carrie*** · 06-29-2006, 06:38 AM

Main Entry: 1dom·i·nant
Pronunciation: -n&nt
Function: adjective
1 : exerting forcefulness or having dominance in a social hierarchy
2 : being the one of a pair of bodily structures that is the more effective or predominant in action <the dominant eye>
3 : of, relating to, or exerting genetic dominance —dom·i·nant·ly adverb

Of course the dominant one in a social group is the one who controls most things. And of course, we all know that dogs are social animals and have an order. Dogs, being social animals have rules and rituals in order that their society runs smoothly. We do too. Let's put that aside.

I think more, the question or debate that comes up time after time isn't that they aren't social animals and don't need guidance as seems to be misunderstood (or purposely misunderstood) by some. The argument is....what kind of guidance do they need, how much force, how much equating to their wild ancestors do our actions need to be. I don't think anyone argues that our dogs need to follow rules and that we need to see to it that they stay inside of certain boundaries. It's how do we get them to stay within our boundaries. Some people use more force, physical, verbal, some use more punishment or corrections and some try to imitate wolves...some use other methods.

Dominant is the stronger more influential thing. I don't argue the true definintion of the word.

Exercising the most influence or control.
Most prominent, as in position; ascendant.
Genetics. Of, relating to, or being an allele that produces the same phenotypic effect whether inherited with a homozygous or heterozygous allele.
Ecology. Of, relating to, or being a species that is most characteristic of an ecological community and usually determines the presence, abundance, and type of other species.
Music. Relating to or based on the fifth tone of a diatonic scale.

However, it has generally become over used in the area of dogs and misunderstood by many. I hear people use that word and then describe what they think they need to do with their dogs and I find it to take on a whole new meaning....instead of simply being the stronger one in the social group, directing some functions, controlling resources, some people think they need to dominate every move their dog makes, that every conceivable behavior has something to do with dominance, heirarchy and status. This is where I draw the line. I do not believe that our dogs....or even wild dogs are constantly thinking heirarchy. (not unless we by interferring....drive it into their brains) I don't equate misbehavior with heirarchy, dominance, lack of "alphaism" LOL. necessarily. I equate it with a dog not having been taught any better and not being shown his boundaries.

Teaching a dog by way of operant conditioning...how they learn...(for example) is not permissiveness...is not ignoring the fact that dogs are social animals and need to be guided. It seems that many purposely misunderstand that. One can teach a dog his rules. Or one can go about it by forcing, alpha rolling, worrying about who goes out a door first, extreme domination, attempts to emulate wolves and their pack ways which are also misunderstood so they're often going about it in a misguided way). Why make it more complicated by the over use of the concepts of "dominance" and "alpha?" So? We are dominant because we make rules and boundaries for our households. And we are alpha because we are deciding a lot of things. Big deal. I let my dogs decide certain things. I don't think about myself that much differently than I did when I had kids at home. (other than the differences between dogs and humans) Of course I make rules and they go along with them. But I don't see any reason to control every move they make and neither do wild alpha dogs/wolves. Wolves do not concern themselves with every behavior the others do, not at all. They only are concerned with breeding and hunting large game and the dispersal of small prey catches. So, all a person has to do is decide what they want for rules and then find out how to teach their dog. It really shouldn't be so complicated.

I believe, in other words (like you really want more words)

that most dog people, whether the CM followers (for instance) or the scientific canine community acknowledge that dogs are social animals and need guidance from us. It's just that the later doesn't tend to rely or dwell so much on terminology like dominance and alpha. Dogs, wolves have a whole lot more to them and a whole lot more going on than that. That is really not a hugely significant aspect of dogs IMO....it seems to be more overwhelmingly dwelled on and interjected into every canine behavior by a lot of dog people than it is even to the dogs themselves. Sure, they can become spoiled brats just like kids and even become dangerous, just like criminals. They need to be taught to get along in our society since we've taken them from their wild state thousands of years ago to our homes. And they are very capable of doing just that, learning our ways while we learn and incorporate theirs too, working together the way the two species have evolved together.

Raised By Wolves · 07-06-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogsareme

When you hear the words 'ALPHA' what comes to mind?

"Alpha" is the scientific term used to describe the top animal in a social group. The first time I heard this term was many years ago when I was studying wolfpack behavior. It is the correct terminology, even if we are tired of hearing "it". A more common term these days when referring to humans and dogs is "Pack Leader" or "leader", which is more descriptive of the function of the top "being". A leader being one who leads, while the follower is the one who follows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogsareme

What about 'Dominance'?

"Dominance " - as in a dog who is displaying dominance, indicates a behavior which communicates to the others within a social group, (whether it's dogs or humans, or a mix of the two), this animal's position within the group. This is the opposite of "submission" - as in a dog who is displaying submission, indicates a behavior which communicates to the others within the group, this animal's position within the group.

This is a form of communication to sort out a social animal's hierarchy, so that they may work together as a team under the direction of a leader.

"Dominant" - as in a dog with a dominant "personality", indicates a specific animal's natural born traits which make it a natural "leader" or "alpha" within a social group. I've found this to be true of all of the social animals I have studied. The lead "being" within a social group is born to be a lead being.

"Subordinant" - as in a dog with the "personality" traits of a subordinant animal, was not born to be an "alpha" or "leader" within a social group. Yet, if there is no "dominant" animal present to lead the subordinant animal, there is still an ingrained need for a hierarchical structure which will cause even a naturally born subordinant animal to try to become the leader of the group - even though they are poorly equiped to do it.

Think I'm wrong? Ever work for a boss who was a poor leader? Think that paycheck is enough to constantly work under a poor leader who makes even trying to do your job confusing and miserable? Or, an office in chaos because all of the underlings squabble amoungst themselves due to the complete lack of leadership or cooperative structure? I have - and no amount of money would keep me in that job. I don't function well under poor leadership. But then again, I was not born "subordinant".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogsareme

A while back its was popular, and with some people still is, to grab your dog by the scruff, flip him over on his back, hold him down and GROWL at him, to assert dominance.

Popular? I don't know that I would use this word. There were a lot of misinterpretations of old wolf studies that concluded the animal at the top - got there through aggression. When the Monks of New Skete put the "alpha roll" in their book, (which they later removed and regretted), there was still this "aggressive" factor in this manuver. I believe even Ian Dunbar misunderstood and used this tactic at one point in time.

Many people still believe that being angry and aggressive is how a leader controls their subordinants. Even your quote sounds like this. I've put a few dogs on the ground or restrained them when they were out of control, but there was never any violence or struggle for power involved. Humans have a very hard time with this concept from what I've seen. They simply can't grasp the concept without thinking of it as a violent act, no matter how gently you are handling the dog. I guess because no human would do this to another without being angry and violent, they can't look at it from another perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogsareme

In your opinion what do you think of when you think of a dog who is dominante and a dog who is the alpha.

When I think of a dog who is acting "dominant", I think of an owner who is acting "subordinant".

When I think of a dog who is the "alpha", this is the most dominant animal in a group, or the "leader".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogsareme

Do you find the terms over used and misunderstood?

I find these terms over-used, misunderstood, misinterpreted, skewed, and used inappropriately by people who don't understand their correct meaning in a scientific sense, and also miss-used by these same people who want to rewrite their definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogsareme

I'll give my opinion when after I read a few

Your turn.

Dogsareme · 07-07-2006, 10:04 PM

lol.

Well I am glad to see alot of other peoples opinions. I honestly thought it might be more of a debate because of some of the more ignorant people I have talked to and tried to explain the difference to them.

The grab your dog by the scruff and growl at them is a thing someone said to me that they use to assert dominance, and I know a few other people who said they have used it. I just could not believe it. I would never ever thought someone would do something like that. Really what does it show your dog besides to distrust you because at any moment you might turn on them.

And then when they went on to say how you have to show your dog you are dominante by being violent. Made no sense to me. And these people also mentioned about the 'alpha' and basically that it's the same thing as being dominante.

Believe me I did not agree with any thing these people were saying and they did not agree with me.

No use giving my opinion because I agree with everything you guys just said.

I just wanted to see the responses It would get.

I definatly think this site is alot more knowledgable about this kind of stuff then most. Thanks guys

GP is great.

***Carrie*** · 07-08-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

In your opinion what do you think of when you think of a dog who is dominante and a dog who is the alpha

This is long and you don't have to read it unless you're interested in research, but it is something which I have researched for a long time....wolf and dog behavior. The information I have gathered is of a more recent nature as far as the scientific world goes. Some of it comes from long ago and has been continued on into the present. I have based my opinion on this research which I have been doing for a lot of years, more intensely in the past 5 or 6. Many, not all of the old, traditional training methods or some of the beliefs and ideas about dog behavior are based on incorrect studies which have been disproven and/or demonstrated to be skewed a little bit by more modern scientists as well as some of the old timers.

I think a dog who is often *considered* dominant and who is alpha is nothing more than a dog who has been spoiled, allowed to have his own way about way too many things, has had no guidance, rules taught and enforced, who has no training which would make him understand what the owner wants him to do. He has no guidance, no structure and becomes demanding and can throw "temper tantrums." Doesn't that sound like some children? They can turn into really dangerous *creeps.* You can call them dominant or alphas if you wish. But are they really leading the family? Are they really taking care of the family as an alpha should?

Do I think they're consciously desirous of taking over and controlling the family as the head of the family? No. I seperate those two things...see them as two entirely different positions. A flailing around dog who knows nothing, who is in fact prone to outbursts and exceedingly rude behavior would not make a good alpha. Alphas like that are disposed of in the wild and a dog like that is not thinking "alpha" but instead wanting his own way about things. He IS neurotic and out of balance. A true alpha is not out of balance, is not neurotic and is not particularily aggressive, not prone to outbursts...is rather cool and collected.

An important phenomenon occured during the evolution of the domestic dog as well as in our own evolution. If you notice, most animals as babies are very playful. As they mature, they play very little. Little lambs, calves....all kinds of babies play but as they grow up to be adults you do not see them playing very much. Of course they do somewhat. But compared to our dogs, not nearly as much. You see an adult dog who is very into fetch, tug and lots of romping. Until they are physically unable, they are very into play.

We humans are like that. Look at all the 50 year olds who still love to ski, bike, ride motorcycles, play games, golf, love jokes. Adult humans retain that playfulness until they are unable to.

This tendancy to continue exuberant play into adulthood is one of the factors that leads most scientists to consider dogs and humans as paedomorphic, or juvenilized versions of their more grown-up relatives. Paedomorphism is the retention of juvenil characteristics at sexual maturity, characteristics that usually fade away as an animal matures. In these animals the normal developmental process is delayed for so long that in some ways they never grow up.

Changes in developmental processes have much to teach us about how and why dogs can be so different from wolves and yet still be of the same species.

A Russian scientist named Dmitry Belyaev was interested in how the process of domestication resulted in animals who are less aggressive than their anestors. Borrowing a group of foxes from Ruissian fur farms, Belyaev selectively bred only the most docile of foxes. He had to choose carefully because most of the foxes with which he was working didn't take kindly to handling. Out of each litter he only bred the foxes that were least likely to try to flee or bite and that were the most likely to lick the oustretched hand of the experimenter and to approach volutarily. In just ten generations, 18% of the foxes born were what he classified as the domesticated elite...eager to establish contact with strangers, whimpering and licking the experimenters' faces like a puppy. By the twentieth generation 35% of them were eager to be petted rather than trying to flee or bite as most adult foxes would.

What makes this study so interesting and so important to science, is that when the researcher selected for just one trait, that of docility, changes occurred in a multitude of other aspects of the foxes' behavior, anatomy and physiology. The floppy ears of young canid pups stayed with the foxes into adulthood. The adult domesticated elite continued to act like pups even as they aged, showing less fear of unfamiliar things at a later age than the normal population of foxes, and reacting submissively to strangers by raising their paws, whining and doing full body wags as young pups do. Amazingly they developed patches of white in their fur, like so many of our domesticated animals.

They also showed some signs of defects like our dogs do...undershot jaws...they had curly tails, rather than straight ones of adult foxes and wolves, curly or wavy fur, a drop in adrenal production and higher levels of serotonin production. These last two physiological changes relate to an animal's overall level of stress, lower levels of corricosteroid production from the adrenals and higher levels of serotonin are associated with animals who are less stressed by unfamiliar things and more open to change. Adult animals are more wary than their young. That's what makes watching children and young animals such a joy....their innocence and cuteness.

The common factor in all these traits of Belyaev's foxes is paedomorphism, or the retention of juvenile traits in the adult form, also replicated in our domesticated dog: overall, adult dogs act much more like juvenile wolves than adult ones.

This selection for juvenile characteristics can, in the case of dogs be attributed to two different explanations. The traditional argument suggests that domestic dogs evolved from wolves because of artifical selection, wherby humans selectively kept and bred the more docile of wolves. Another argument is that docility developed through a process of natural selection, whereby dogs with shorter flight distances began gathering around human settlements to scavange on their left over food. It is most possible that both processes occurred simultaneously.

What is relevant to us for whatever reason, we have a whole bunch of characteristics in our dogs associated with juvenile canids, even after they've grown up, including being remarkably playful.

And we humans, playful and childlike into our old age, play right along with our dogs until neither one of us can physically continue. This tendancy has led to the suggestion that humans are paedomorphic primates. John Fiske, in 1884 made this hypothesis. It is not a new one. He suggested that our eternal youth has played a role in our evolution. One of the defining characteristics of humans is our creativity, our willingness to try new things and new ways of interacting with our environment....all traits normally associated with youth. Of course, old people are not as apt that way as children but more so than that of most species.....besides dogs.

This is partly why I believe that very few (some sure) dogs are truly dominant or trying to take over the pack. Puppies do not do this. And our dogs are the equivelent to wolf puppies in many phyiological and behavioral ways. Puppies have no business in the wild asserting themselves for the purpose of becoming alpha. They just wouldn't dare. It's not in their minds. They don't do this.

The physical body language, gestures and other such demonstrations that we see are, imo instincts which have been carried over through evolution. They serve a purpose. Puppies do need to "practice" these drives for adulthood. That's in their wiring. But I think it's much less in domestic dogs. I do not believe that a dog is planning a take over when he stands over a child, (that can be prey drive) when he growls when someone comes near his food, when he rushes to get out the door first, if he is allowed on furniture or at a higher elevation. He wants something to go his way, doesn't want something to happen that he doesn't like. And he's always gotten to have his way so he becomes demanding. Again, I do not say that these drives do not exist, but that they are much less pronounced, less meaningful than they sometimes appear. JMO.

These gestures are his way (brought along with him in the evolution process) of communicating that he is going to decide this or that. Some call this dominance. Maybe it is. But I see it as a little more than that. That is too basic, too obvious...to direct. I don't think that's exactly what's going on. Because dogs are not living in the wild, but with us, having to learn more of our ways, not having to hunt, not having to fight predators etc....I think that they do not act the way they would if wild. And I think some of their behaviors are not natural, but misplaced.....caused on account of living with humans. In other words, what they would do in the wild is not always what they do in captivity.

I can lie on the floor with my Doberman Pinscher standing over me. He is wagging and wiggling, licking me, pawing at me, sticking his rear up in the air. He's ready to play, in other words. My little Chihuahuas can walk across my chest and lick my face. This happens when I try to exercise. LOL. Are they being dominant? Am I telling them that it's OK....they can be "higher" than I am in the heirarchy? Of course not.

A dog who is submissive and "low" on the heirarchy can still misbehave if he hasn't been taught manners. A dog can still rush out a door ahead of his owner, jump up, bark and he may be the lowliest in a heirarchy. Why would it make sense that only a "dominant" dog would do these things? Some of the behaviors people say a dominant dog does are actually submissive behaviors. So, to equate misbehavior with a dog trying to be dominant and alpha just doesn't make sense to me.

My Doberman and Chihuahuas can get on the couch. I don't invite them..they're allowed to get on whenever they wants to. I don't eat before my dogs. They eat too early in the evening. I don't like to eat dinner that early. I open the door and let them out first because I have two doors (a storm door and a regular door) and it's hard to manage them if I go out first. My dogs will wait until I give them the "OK" because I've taught them manners....to not bust out past me. I did that because I like a mannerly dog, not because I was worried about them taking over and ruling me and controlling MY resources. (that's what an alpha does....controls resources)....not act nasty and spoiled, aggressive and physically violent as some people would have you believe and why they equate a *spoiled* rotten dog with trying to be alpha.

Raised By Wolves · 07-08-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote: