(Be advised that this a long essay on theory.)
Recently there was a productive discussion (except for you know who) on Lee’s Psychology Today blog in regards to the differences between dogs and cats in terms of their respective social capacities. I would like to springboard off this discussion in order to more thoroughly develop the concept of “emotional capacity,” as well as to distinguish the notion from Daniel Goleman’s concept of emotional intelligence—which in essence advocates the control of emotion by reason—and which is how this kind of intelligence (emotional capacity = feeling what another is feeling) is generally misconstrued. What we have to understand about animal intelligence is that it is dependent on being able to incorporate a sense-of-self within the surroundings, rather than postulating a self relative to the surroundings as in the “emotional intelligence” model. This is the fundamental misinterpretation of animal behavior whereas the notion of emotional capacity is the ONLY theory intellectually consistent with Darwin’s notion of continuity due to common descent.
Meanwhile, some misinterpret probing for the distinctions between dogs and cats as if we’re asking which is better, dogs or cats, and then in order to salvage the good name of cats the counterargument reflexively becomes that dogs and cats aren’t really very different (“My cat comes when called.”) as otherwise one must be better than the other. It’s as if we’re discussing social capacities between races of people when the topic of comparative behavior really should be approached without an emotional charge as we would the question: What are the differences between carbon and helium?— so that we can ascertain the chemistry essential to life. So my argument isn’t that dogs are better than cats because they are more social. It is that dogs have a higher emotional capacity than cats and can therefore perceive order and flow in situations and under conditions that cats cannot. All animals share a core emotional dynamic and in this fundamental sense all animals are the same. Thus on rare occasion we observe the lioness nursing the gazelle fawn. However this core is not static, it is dynamic, specifically, as a platform for elaboration that ultimately renders the phenomenon we call sociability. Species of animals vary in their capacity to sustain this process of elaboration under higher and higher rates of change and a high capacity enables such individuals to go by feel when under stress and encountering resistance.
A feeling is a process of elaboration that depends on the individuals’ sense of its “self” becoming, from its point of view, integrated with its surroundings. Then, if the object of its attraction can reciprocate in kind, and all animals can potentially do so because the same emotional core is universal in animal consciousness, then an auto-tuning/feedback dynamic is enabled so that two individuals become emotional complements, equal and yet opposite, to the other. Since this fulfills the fundamental mandate of energy, which is defining two poles (one-with-energy-to-give relative to one-with-energy-to-absorb), energy can move between them and both parties to the interaction feel internally gratified and therefore rewarded for whatever action or inaction they may have performed in order to complement the object of their attraction. Nothing tangible has to happen, it just feels “right” given the way neurology, physiology and anatomy interface to frame an animal’s perception of experience.
What this means is that all animals have feelings, but a feeling is like a pipe in terms of how much energy (emotion) it can carry. When, where and how the process of elaboration breaks down, constitutes the size of the pipe and determines how strong a given feeling can be and whether the feeling can persist long enough to impact the environment so that it can be shaped to conform to the internal dynamic of the feeling. This is where such expressions as “Will To Live” and “Where There’s A Will There’s A Way” come from. (If one has ever had a strong impulse in one context, that then fades when in another context even though the underlying emotion hasn’t been resolved, that is an example of a low emotional capacity so that the feeling couldn’t be sustained in a new context.) Emotional capacity and the protocols of its elaboration are essential to dog training because the fundamental question is: How big is the pipe between you and your dog? If the pipe isn’t big enough then under certain circumstances the dog will not be able to feel its owner and won’t listen.
On the other hand, if one party in the interaction were to resist the other and fail to become its equal and yet opposite, then friction results and both will end up with more of an emotional charge (and a sensation of being incomplete because of an internalized vibration, which from that point forward demands completion) than when they began. (This is why dogs with strong social natures will avoid conflict that they could easily win and even bear the brunt of an outburst without retaliation because they orient toward feeling whole and avoid acquiring sensations of incompleteness.) Because it takes two to make a connection this principle of emotional conductivity (I can’t feel good unless you feel good) provides an inborn impetus toward sociability. This doesn’t mean that sociability is a foregone conclusion in any given encounter because the acquisition of an emotional charge can also beget an addictive cycle of load/overload hyper-tension that is then relieved by the prey instinct, which is why dogs do on occasion fight other dogs, bite kids, kill cats and not to mention that it is extremely rare to find lionesses nursing gazelle fawns. It’s just that since the makeup of every animal is predicated on a universal emotional core, sociability is over the long term and statistically speaking, inevitable. Nature has all the time in the world and every action or inaction be it social or “anti-social” increases the energy of attraction and ultimately contributes to the construction of an interconnected web of ecosystems. As Darwin said: “We are all netted.”
To digress for a moment, animals don’t recognize the before and after effects of an experience they go through by virtue of a cognitive understanding of a cause that led to an effect that is then framed within a cost/benefit kind of analysis, which is what the conventional and scientific theories are trying to demonstrate. Rather they can feel if there is an increase or a decrease of compression from moment to moment as emotion courses through their body/mind, and then whether or not they are still holding a charge after any given event. If a dog can integrate its self into its surroundings, then everything that happens during an event is part of one moment no matter how long it may take to transpire. Within a moment (and the experience of an intense situation can be slowed down in an animal’s perception of it by a strong feeling) an animal can perceive the direction of flow and and the pace, or beat, of change and in this emotional state can thereby adjust its actions in order to synchronize with the most significant elements of the system in flux. But if an animal cannot perceive both poles–the polarity of tension (-) relative to the polarity of release (+)–in a given frame of reference, then when something changes, that individual experiences this as a new frame of reference, a separate moment, and has to reacquire a sense of its polarities and then cannot form a coherent energetic view of events running their course over a span of time. They become con-fused and their actions have a static, load/overload quality to them because they’re leaping from one moment to another. (For example, if these concepts are hard to follow, then the reader is experiencing many moments with discontinuity between them. But if the logical arc is whole, then it is experienced as one moment. If you’re experiencing many moments, my apologies.) This fragmentation of a moment or the capacity to experience it whole, rather than cognition, is how animals learn from experience on the most fundamental level.
Now what makes dogs singular is that they can integrate their sense of self into circumstances that for most other animals are not conductive (see supermarket analogy of consciousness). Because their emotional appetite is so high, a dog is able to turn what other animals perceive as absolute negatives, or barriers to the flow of emotion, into positives, in other words, that which cannot conduct or resists emotion can be made conductive through the sheer force of desire. They are able to do this because of being able to process the deepest and most intense physical memories through their hunger circuitry so that in a situation that is daunting for other species, they can apprehend the potential for flow, and they are able to do this because of the aforementioned capacity to synchronize with what they perceive as a source of tension, and when in sync what an object of attraction does feels energizing rather than destabilizing. They can link the negative to the positive in their surroundings.
I presented the idea in YDIYM, that the fundamental purpose of hunger isn’t nourishment, but rather it is a programming hook so that external objects piggyback on the brain-to-gut connection. Through a Pavlovian imprint during infancy, external objects literally travel down the subliminal focal beam, and there is quite literally energy that is materially real because the neurological activity in the dog’s brain has become subliminally attached to this point of reference within the body/mind. From the individual dog’s point of view, it perceives a change as a displacement of its physical equilibrium and the subsequent neurological energy generated by its brain, it feels as if it is attached to its physical center-of-gravity, as if something is pushing on its body at that point, the epicenter of where it senses its physical center-of-gravity to be within its body via the subliminal beam of attention. This hook by which external objects are imported, is like open source software so that other developers (i.e. the external environment) can create new code within the dog’s body/mind.
If the hunger for the external object of displacement (attraction) is strong enough, there is a commensurate feeling of fusion between its physical center-of-gravity and this external object of attraction. When it moves, the dog feels as if it is moving and ultimately, the back and forth (Newton’s second law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction) and this can induce the feeling of weightlessness just as two kids experience on a seesaw. This state of emotional resonance increases the dog’s emotional capacity and now the two can come to operate as one, as if they are physically connected. Something that was non-conductive (the predatory aspect of the other dog) has been made conductive through the force of desire, i.e. processing external objects via the hunger circuitry. Resistance becomes sensually arousing rather than emotionally inhibiting.
The second dog is likely to respond in kind because the approaching dog by acting as its mirror, puts pressure on the dog but simultaneously deflects its attention onto its body so that physical memories of resistance will be processed through the hunger rather than the balance circuitry. This back and forth mirroring process has been misinterpreted as “calming signals” and while the term calming is apt, signaling is not. Both individuals are working within a universal auto-tuning/feedback dynamic. They are creating the signal and this auto-tuning/feedback process is what calms them, there isn’t a calming signal.
If a dog can process a physical memory through its hunger circuitry as opposed to its balance circuitry (animal consciousness is the confluence of balance and hunger along a variable ratio) then it is not being governed by the past, which would limit it to the reflexes or habits that had worked previously (as in output having equalled input in order to maintain a sense of equilibrium). Instead it will feel compelled to act as an emotional counterbalance to the the object of its attraction and this will inspire it to tune its behavior to the present, immediate-moment reality. If the object of attraction is manifesting an “up” state, then it will feel moved to get itself lower. If the object of its attraction is still, it will tend toward action. If the other dog is direct in its manner, the emotional dog will deflect its attention off its eyes and act circuitously. If this being is tense, it will feel soft. In such an interaction, going by feel means being guided by flow, and so a feeling unlike a habit, thought or instinct, proceeds according to what’s actually happening in that moment.
The significance of hunger being predominant over balance in animal consciousness is this ratios’ critical impact on emotional capacity. For example, when in balance mode, capacity is limited because when stimulated, an individuals’ output (action) has to IMMEDIATELY equal input (the degree to which it has been stimulated) and so it will quickly react to the stimulus rather than act in correspondence with the stimulus. It isn’t able to wait for the moment to unfold because just like losing one’s physical balance, an instant response is required to return to equilibrium. (This is the quintessential definition of a “reactive” dog.) Typically and ironically emotion has long been considered the impulsive force on behavior when the real culprit is instinct and habit.
Instinctive reflexes are a short term, electrostatic-like, load/overload manner of discharge whereas emotional capacity is what tailors a response in a measured way to the moment and with a coherence which also factors in the long term. Instincts preclude action that is fine tuned and corresponding to what’s happening emotionally within the object of its attraction. “I don’t care what you feel because I can’t feel what you feel.”
But on the other hand if it’s processing through its hunger circuitry, then it doesn’t have to act immediately to keep the emotional equilibrium checkbook in balance because it’s feeling flow, the ultimate metric of safety and gratification. I like to use the metaphor of fly fishing to explain this phenomenon. The accomplished angler doesn’t try to overpower the fish but lets it run its course because it’s the flow of the back and forth that is the real point to fishing. In the hunger over balance frame of mind, impulses (such as getting the fish on shore as quickly as possible)can be overridden because when the individual relives a physical memory via its hunger circuitry, it’s “in its body” and feeling whole and therefore doesn’t relive the particulars of how physical memory was acquired, but rather physical memory serves as a lump sum, pure emotional counterweight to what it is attracted to. This translates into feeling movement that is coherent because it feels as if it is moving along an axis directly and physically linking it to the object of attraction. Whatever the observing dog does is immediately fed back into its sense of its own body by virtue of what the object of its attraction does. The behavior of the other individual isn’t acting on him, but within him and the dog quickly apprehends that it can control the object of attraction by controlling its own actions given this immediate feedback loop. But at the opposite end of the spectrum when balance is over hunger, the dog can’t get that linkage. This coherent back and forth motion is a predictor of an imminent state of suspension, the aforementioned feeling of flow. It’s like two magnets coming together and at least one of them is free to flip and can readily attach to the other. We see a dog that’s in its body “collect” itself into its hind end because it is feeling energized (just as if it’s eating food) rather than destabilized (as if it’s falling), even though no tangible, material dividend for its patience has yet been realized. (Note that the nourishing, energizing effects of food are realized before any nutrient is actually digested or metabolized. This is the aforementioned programming “hook” so that external objects of attraction can be imported via the subliminal beam of reference, and emotionally digested and metabolized so as to arrive at a more complex and nuanced sense-of-self which now includes the object of attraction.)
When hunger is greater than balance, then the balance mechanism is subsumed into its social function and serves as a tuning faculty by which the individual precisely attunes to the object of its attraction. (We can observe this laser precision manifested with cutting horses, herding dogs and athletes, cheetah running down an antelope by cutting the corners oh so delicately, and especially gymnasts.) I argue that emotional capacity has evolved to be higher in canines than other animals (save one) due to the fact that they hunt a prey that is large and dangerous, which means going-by-feel within a maelstrom of rapid fire change and intense resistance, which is especially pronounced after we factor in the physical capacity of canines relative to the physical power of their prey. I believe that emotional capacity (the ability to go by feel) is the source of the complexities of canine social life as well as the dog’s incredible behavioral plasticity. During the process of elaboration, elements of the environment are imported and integrated into the individual’s very apprehension of its “self.” (“What-I-Want and How-I-Feel is Who-I-Am”) And so the the dog’s sense of its self evolves in real time to changing circumstances allowing its responses to become more and more refined and nuanced according to the specifics of the situation. Historically this behavioral plasticity have been mistakenly attributed to higher cognitive functions but there are many clues in the everyday and extraordinary things that animals (and most especially and vividly dogs) do that clearly indicate that cognition and constructing a theory of mind isn’t at work. What we’re really observing is a feedback dynamic precisely attuning to a specific set of parameters the longer the process of elaboration can be sustained. The concept of emotional capacity can best be brought into relief by considering the differences between the various species of animals as well as to consider the differences between the various breeds of dogs. When the process of elaboration reaches the highest levels, it becomes finely tuned to the object of attraction. This is the essence of each breed of dog, finely tuned to the prey the breed was selected to hunt. Emotional capacity is why we have the wide diversity of dogs, genetic plasticity running in parallel with behavioral plasticity due to the far more fundamental and underlying emotional capacity.
In a nutshell, when an individual has a high emotional capacity then the individual feels that a negative-represents-access-to-a-positive. The individual feels that the eyes (-) of the other being, grant him access to his deepest physical memories and the powerful feelings arising from within his body (+). A simple emotional circuit is completed. Note that in the core emotional dynamic, the circuitry isn’t in the individual. It must evolve into physical reality by coming into syncopation with an object of attraction. Only half the emotional circuitry is in the individual, no animal is an island.
Meanwhile back at the Psyche today discussion, I will address a complaint that was raised by our internet friend apparently signaling from his post in a galaxy far, far away. While his criticism didn’t make the forum due to his problem with civil discourse it somehow showed up in my inbox. And because it can be construed as a legitimate questioning of the term emotional capacity I’ve coined, I’ve extracted the following:
“The silliness of Behan’s argument is that one can just as easily claim that a dog’s “emotional capacity” is easier to overload than a cat’s.”
So is the notion of emotional capacity fickle, can it be turned around to mean anything one wants it to mean? No because it’s part of a model and if it’s used capriciously, the model falls apart. (You may have noticed that dominance theorists are now arguing that a dominance hierarchy is a bubble-up emergent phenomenon, in other words, an oxymoron. This is a capricious use of language that renders the term nonsensical.) Since my definition of emotion (a virtual force of attraction) distinguishes it from instinct (genetically encoded reflexes triggered by sensations attendant to the collapse of a state of attraction), and because feelings are centered in the heart and are therefore distinct from thoughts centered in the head, emotional capacity means one thing and one thing only, the capacity to go by feel under a high rate of change. (For example a successful NFL quarterback reports that after several years of experience the “game begins to slow down.” In other words he can feel what all the other players on the field are doing as the action unfolds. His body becomes attuned to an incredibly high rate of change. There is also an interesting experiment wherein a stunt man is dropped into a netting from a 200 foot height. He wears a special watch that flickers too fast to be read except as it turns out, when he’s in free fall. I interpret this to mean that his familiar frames of reference of his body/mind, which are predicated on balance and a specific state of body tension, have been erased by finding himself in a state of suspension and so quite literally, the moment slows down.)
In my model emotion follows a principle of conductivity so that if two parties in an interaction can manifest complementary traits or “poles” so as to sustain a feeling of flow in their heart, a social structure arises that is predicated on the internal principles of emotion (conductivity and the conservation of energy). Therefore a universal module of emotion is responsible for all cooperative and social behavior no matter the species and so the definitive question now becomes at what level of intensity, does the fundamental module collapse so that the individual reverts to instincts, habits, or in the case of humans and perhaps some primates, thoughts, in order to cope with an overwhelming experience. So if I were to arbitrarily declare emotional capacity to be one thing or another just for the expedience of sustaining an argument, then it no longer fits into a model that simultaneously encompasses a coherent definition of sexuality, learning, drive, and personality, instinct, thoughts, etc., etc., etc.. This model evolved over many years of observing dogs and animals without projecting thoughts onto their behavior and does not rely on oxymorons and internal contradictions to encompass the full range of behavior. I eagerly invite a critic to construct their own model which shouldn’t be difficult if as they claim dogs can think as they must be thinking akin to how we think, varying by degree rather than in kind.
Meanwhile, the most fundamental commonality between man and animal is inarguably emotion rather than intellect, and since humans are emotional, I don’t see why we can’t know what an animal is experiencing on a purely emotional level. I’m not speaking in totality, but on this inarguably shared plane of emotional experience. Even if I am wrong about cognitive capacities of animals, the reality remains that unless we start with a rock bottom fundamental definition of emotion, it will prove impossible to discern what aspect of intelligent and adaptive behavior is due to emotion as opposed to the higher reaches of cognition. By immediately leaping to cognition to explain complex adaptive behavior, objective scientific inquiry is immediately at that point terminated. Currently behavioral sciences are working without a model which is akin to trying to understand the interactions between atoms and molecules without understanding the workings of gravity, the laws of motion and electromagnetism. Therefore, since the emotional dynamic is universal to all emotional beings, our own personal experience of emotion can be our best research tool.
This paradox reminds me of a scene from “The Emperor of Scent” when biochemist Luca Turin, who is promulgating a new theory for the sense of smell, brought a set of samples to a scientist who was a gate keeper on publication. Turin’s fascination with the sense of smell arose from his love of perfume, and like a wine connoisseur he can decode the complex chemical admixture of any perfume given that his love of smell cultivated a rarified nasal “palate.” But when he suggested to the scientist that he look up from his papers and actually smell the concoctions he had laid out on his desk to experience the rationale for his claim through his own senses, the man was shocked by the idea, as if using one’s nose was antithetical to science. Likewise, if one is able to parse apart the internal experience of sensations, instincts, thoughts, feelings and emotion within their own body/mind, then what we experience during an emotional event is potentially our best tool for scientific inquiry. The first step is to learn to not invest an emotional experience with Time (since no one knows what that is) and with this skill in hand, our most subjective sense, our feelings becomes our most objective lens into our own animal mind, that which we hold in common with all other animals.
For example, immediately preceding an outburst of anger or an implosion of guilt is a sensation of collapse, a rushing in on itself, like the sandy loam of a riverbank being eaten away by flood waters. This collapse transpires within the center of our chest and this is the precise instant when one’s emotional capacity is being breached. On the other hand there are occasions when the opposite happens and rather than a caving in we experience a welling up, as if the middle of one’s chest is an energy vortex, a well spring, and in this state everything happening around us feels energizing and empowering rather than destabilizing or burdening. Things seem to slow down.
By paying very close attention to this one can verify the concept of emotional capacity for oneself and so we can arrive at a fundamental choice, who are we going to believe, the experts or our feeling heart? As Luca Turin’s work suggests sometimes we have to stop and smell the roses.
One of the logical underpinnings of NDT is that the size of the prey and the danger quotient in hunting such animals, is the best explanation for the social life of wolves and hence, the behavior and trainability of domestic dogs. Overcoming resistance is how the dynamic of emotional capacity evolved. Wolves had to be able to feel which prey animal was becoming confused and then cooperate with their peers in synchronized motion. This capacity was highlighted via domestication and so our pet dogs feel what we feel because they live at ease in our world of incessant change. Another way of saying this is that they feel sensual in circumstances wherein other species would feel sensitive.
The hunting to social linkage is of critical importance to dog owners because when a dog’s hunting drive is properly developed, then a healthy social disposition and willing obedience is ensured. Whereas if the dog’s emotion and learning is approached from either the dominance or the scientific models of learning, then the hunting template is left for the dog to figure out on its own. Many dogs can indeed do so because for many dogs chasing a Frisbee or going for a car ride is satisfying to a “low prey threshold” temperament, and the emotional battery will eventually connect the necessary dots so that life with its owner can be emotionally construed by the dog as a group living in synchronized motion. (The negative, owner’s eyes, does to an extent lead to the positive.)
One can also say that the extent to which both of these models deviate from their theoretical underpinning (for example the notion that playing tug of war is simply a “high value reinforcement”— albeit a term that actually denies where the value in a reinforcement comes from) also happens to be the extent to which both end up being successful in the real world. So a trainer plays tug with their dog as a reward and they interpret this as being positive and then attribute their dog’s trainability and a good social nature to the virtue of being positive rather than understanding that when emotional capacity is high enough because the dog is able to convert unresolved emotion to resolved emotion by way of overcoming resistance, even “negatives” become positive. It’s the power of the negative given the dog’s high emotional capacity that is truly responsible for the dog’s successful development.
And then however, by the same token, when one doesn’t access the hunting/group dynamic directly, this can cause eventual failure since those dogs with extremely strong hunting drive, or those dogs under a great deal of stress, can break down when under a heavy emotional load if the emotional capacity isn’t specifically addressed in regards to the phenomenon of overcoming resistance.
In the Psychology Today discussion two good objections were raised to the prey size/danger relative to predator criteria. One was that lions do in fact hunt very large and dangerous prey animals as for example, giraffes and water buffalo, and it occurred to the reader that this therefore can’t account for the nuance of canine social structure. Lee countered that while true, nevertheless the size disparity between lions and large prey and canines and large prey still remains, however I concede that the danger of a giraffe with its powerful hooves and amazing reach is pretty overwhelming. (The question remains whether lions regularly target these animals or are they merely hunts of opportunity.) Below are links to a number of videos of various hunts with canines and lions so that one can judge for themselves the disparity in physical strength between canines and their prey relative to felines and their prey. To my eyes, the canines look a bit delicate and quite feeble relative to the overwhelming physique and power of lions.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5wend_wildebeest-attacked-by-wild-dogs_animals
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5w4m4_lions-on-the-hunt_animals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb6Rke7jiTc
But nevertheless the legitimate point remains that lions on occasion hunt large and dangerous animals, but then what does this point actually substantiate? It actually substantiates the point it’s arguing against since the extent to which lions hunt large dangerous prey, is the extent to which cats are able to be domesticated to a level that approaches the domestic dog. In fact because the emotional dynamic is a fundamental module of behavior that is universal to all animals, whenever an animal is placed in a synchronized, emotionally conductive “medium” (I’m thinking here of Alex the Parrot and Washoe the chimp) they begin to exhibit rather spectacular capabilities. Is their emotional capacity being raised due to the affection and bond with their human handler?
Perhaps the best objection that was raised to the hunting/social thesis was that the distinguishing feature between feline and canine and what makes the canine hunting style possible, is physical endurance rather than emotional cohesion. Due to physiology, a cat is soon exhausted if the kill isn’t accomplished quickly. However, while this places a physical capacity over an emotional capacity, it still leaves intact the premise that the hunt is critical and could still be the basis for a refined style of social living. So even if it were the case that physical endurance allows for complex teamwork that plays out over a long period of time, the hunt still comes first. Interestingly, African Wild Hunting dogs have a hunting strategy completely predicated on physical endurance and yet these did not produce the domestic dog.
But I am also arguing that physical adaptations arise from the emotional dynamic, in other words emotion comes before genes (logically this is the only way it could be a universal feature of animal consciousness) and that therefore, the attribute of physical endurance derives from an underlying emotional capacity as well. Canines evolved to have physical endurance because they are endowed with emotional persistence, not the other way around. I used to run cross country in college and running along a narrow trail through the woods made me feel energized and tireless because of the feelings induced from rapidly racing past things, whereas traversing a large open field and looking at a long reach to the horizon, could make my legs feel like concrete beginning to harden. My emotional capacity was buoyed by one context, and burdened by another, and my perception of physical fatigue followed from this. (Donnie Osler recently posted on the site scientific findings from an athletes’ “kick” which I believe ties into my concept of an emotional battery.)
Obviously emotional capacity has to be working beneath the genetic scenes because I noticed in my cross country days that I was mostly running with other tall skinny guys so a geneticist would take issue with me here. In other words, my gene code wasn’t changing in real time based on my emotional capacity (although epigenetics is now causing us to rethink this). However my point is that the malleability of my perception depending on context is a signature in one’s consciousness of the far deeper correlation between the two. Genes fundamentally are limits that keep a given species locked into a given niche in service to the network. It’s when the emotional conductivity raises high enough that genetic constraints on behavior are suspended and then the base emotional code can take over. This happens when hunger for flow (it takes two to flow) is more pronounced than keeping in stasis. (Dimasio’s definition of emotion as fundamentally about homeostasis is “Dimasio’s Error” to paraphrase a title. The drive within the organism to return to homeostasis is the body/mind capturing energy for subsequent integration.)
Actually all animals are persistent in regards to whatever their particular species categorizes as prey and this is because attuning to prey (that which absorbs and conducts emotion) is a universal feature of the emotional dynamic. One animal isn’t fundamentally different from another; they all carry the trait of persistence, what differs is the degree of resistance they can handle, otherwise “the game speeds up.” Thus we can restate the concept of emotional capacity by noting that a high emotional capacity allows a dog to perceive a preyful aspect (emotional ground) in things that other animals cannot, and this is why they manifest the trait of doggedness as a persistent feature of their makeup across a broader range of contexts (and in my view also why they carry the physical adaptation for endurance) because they can next associate the negative with the positive so that it becomes an access channel.
In summary, emotional capacity enables a platform of elaboration so that a raw, undifferentiated energy of attraction can evolve into a refined feeling BY INCORPORATING OTHERWISE NON-CONDUCTIVE ELEMENTS OF THE SURROUNDINGS INTO THE ORIGINAL FEELING OF ATTRACTION. The social structure that emerges from this is not an emergent capability per se, but is actually a statement of information, a computation of change so that an emotional charge becomes manifested as highly correlated personality states, like frequencies of light in phase. In other words, the personality of a dog is a computation of how change is being processed IN ITS GROUP.
How does emotional capacity explain the social “savvy” of wolves, the most important aspect is the collective raising of the young, whereas in contrast in African Wild Hunting Dogs and lion social systems, infanticide is a regular feature of the reproductive cycle?
NUCLEAR FUSION. Because the emotional capacity of wolves is so high, their social life follows wholly from the social life of their prey. Just as the musk ox form up into a circle with the young pressed deep into its center, every aspect of the wolf’s social life revolves around the communal raising of the cubs. The cubs are at the hub of the wheel and every behavior of the adults is like a spoke radiating out to form a wheel. Cubs and adults become of one mind.
In the canine mind, inanimate objects can become “group triggers” because they induce the memories of hunger. They then become midpoints around which the group orbits and a social order emerges upon this platform. This is what dogs can do far more readily than cats and the signature of this is that when you arouse a dog with the movement of a prey object, he visibly drools whereas cats, while they will bat at it and pounce, do not drool copiously. So group triggers can get deep into the physiology of the organism beyond its species genetic hardwiring and preprogramming, so that the emotional circuitry can evolve between two parties in an interaction and beget a social order.
Only half the emotional circuitry is in the individual, the other has to evolve into existence or the capacity is breached and then there is no platform for elaboration. These group triggers can be the cub, and they can be inanimate objects that induce the memory of a social order. Dogs having a high emotional capacity, are particularly susceptible to importing external stimuli into their body/minds and then when excess stimulation hyper-excites their prey instinct, and the dog “loses consciousness” and can’t feel the essence of what it is looking at. It’s akin to an epileptic seizure and is the basis of the so-called “rage syndrome” and even manic cases of aggression in the stronger natured dogs.
According to famed natural veterinarian Dr. Schoen: “In cats, hereditary epilepsy is actually quite unusual. Normally, one can find a particular cause. These include feline infectious diseases such as feline leukemia, feline infectious peritonitis, feline AIDS, chemical toxins, brain tumors, head trauma such as after being hit by a car as well as various problems with the liver and kidneys.”
In nuclear fusion, the external becomes emotionally welded to the internal and then hunger for an object of attraction (which depends on sensing its preyful aspect) becomes a platform on which the movements of said object, feels energizing rather than overwhelming. And since emotion only moves according to its own inherent principle of conductivity, and since emotion is universal to all animals, if the object of attraction can reflect that emotional energy back at the one who projected its emotion onto it, and if they can both feel hunger for the other, then an auto-tuning/feedback dynamic comes on line created by the two parties and this then guides the interaction along to higher and higher levels of elaboration. Both parties behave so as to cause the object of their attraction to behave in a way that heightens its feeling of pleasure. They each become, literally, the ground for the other. This ping/pong template is the basis of all advanced dog service work and canines are different than felines because at a high rate of intensity, a cat’s emotional capacity collapses and they now must go by either instinct or habit, rather than by feel. They go by their past rather than by being in the moment.
Under certain conductive circumstances, we will observe this process of elaboration occurring in all species of animals, and yet nonetheless the prime distinction of capacity remains. We can think of emotional capacity as a pipe, every organism is a conduit for emotion, but certain species become overwhelmed at specific points and this triggers discrete behaviors, quite akin to light along the spectrum being radiated at specific wavelengths. To our eyes, it looks like these behaviors are unrelated to another species version of same, but that is analogous to how we once thought of the color blue as unrelated to the color red.
The emotional dynamic is a platform of elaboration wherein energy is reflected back and forth from one component of the system to another and in this way it evolves into more and more complex feelings. This process of elaboration collapses more quickly in cats than dogs, and when it collapses, the intensity of the collapse triggers species specific fixed action patterns or reflexes. Whereas a dog can feel emotionally fused with object of attraction so that the intensity of collapse merely fuels a stronger and stronger hunger rather than an imbalance. For example, if you tease a dog with a prey-like toy, he salivates. If you tease a cat, he either bats at it or pounces as the process of elaboration quickly collapses into a prey-making reflex because the intensity is too high.
My point here is to show that this is not a cognitive kind of intelligence. Therefore on the most fundamental level of distinction between species, it’s not that one species of animal has this or that behavioral module and another animal does not, a capacity that can then be traced to this or that neurological structure in the brain, rather the fundamental differences between animals is to what degree or level of “amplitude” (intensity of the experience) that the individual can participate in until its carrying capacity is breached at which point it responds with either an instinct or a habit (or a thought in the case of humans). Emotional capacity is the fundamental agency of learning because it’s how animals integrate external variables with internal emotional states, the foundation 6of a coherent response. Thus, when an individual can’t participate further in this process of elaboration, then species specific reflexes or habituated responses take over and we see there resulting behaviors fall out along a spectrum and we see them as fundamentally different. So in the way that emotion and intelligence is currently entertained it’s as if we’re looking at a two dimensional figure when in reality it is three or poly-dimensional, in other words, our tendency is to see intelligence as something static rather than dynamic.
Appreciate your advisory…yes it is long! Haven’t gotten to it yet as I want to make sure I have the time to properly digest as well. Looking forward to the reading 😀
about the watch – from wikipedia
“Curvature of spacetime is a relativistic manifestation of the existence of mass. Curvature is extremely weak and difficult to measure. For this reason, curvature wasn’t discovered until after it was predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Extremely precise atomic clocks on the surface of the earth, for example, are found to measure less time (run slower) than similar clocks in space. This difference in elapsed time is a form of curvature called gravitational time dilation.”
in other words, if time is slower on earth then the free fall slows down the watch flicker comparatively and maybe this is why it can be read ? would be cool to try freefall on the moon and also, faster than freefall acceleration / same speed as freefall but staying in the same orbit.
one of the interesting points of the article is, as usual with Kevin, the hunting style,.
i would propose that lions and dogs who hunt in packs are more similar “emotionally”..
other subspecies or “aberrant” individual cats and dogs/wolves who are solitary would be more similar to each other in behaviour.
however, members of either species have shown to be capable and seemingly “decide” to be solitary for periods and in a group for other periods.
and while they are solitary of course they will be less likely to hunt large prey.
(of course if you give 100 hounds a fox they will hunt it enthusiastically not caring how puny and small it really is….)
talk about small prey….some dogs hunt insects. I guess in some climates those are the first food sources to appear after winter starvation and those who were able to catch lots of them survived….
so go figure.
I think this is the problem with behavioural science and why they are not getting anywhere. often in a hypothesis there are as many outlier behaviours as there are behaviours that a certain scientist would like to call “species specific”
that’s not how you pin down any really meaningful behaviours “exclusively” for dogs, that are truly never seen in cats etc.
this may be explained by purporting that there is a lot of potential for free will decision making and many variances in learning capacity in dogs cats chimpanzees, pretty much anything that has more than a lizard brain.
obviously the majority of cats are not particularly social compared with the majority of dogs. why ??? its not like humans have selectively bred cats to be less social….
nothing so far explains the outliers and nothing so far explains why cats by and large are motivated this way and dogs the other way
if they have more/less emotional capacity how is that an explanation ….like by which process is a species endowed or not with emotional capacity ???? it might be a way to an explanation but the final conclusion is still missing…
btw if a tall skinny guy has really short legs there is a high probability that they cannot cross country ski very fast….there is not a high probability that a tall skinny guy has really short legs but disregardless….
Great points, thanks for your input.
CR: “in other words, if time is slower on earth then the free fall slows down the watch flicker comparatively and maybe this is why it can be read ? would be cool to try freefall on the moon and also, faster than freefall acceleration / same speed as freefall but staying in the same orbit.”
KB: Well your interpretation of quantum mechanics is as good as mine if not better, but I don’t think the speed or the distance from earth matters in this scenario as far as human perception is concerned. Rather I think the experience of weightlessness induced a quantum like effect in the workings of consciousness in the stunt man and hence the difference in his perception of time.
CR: “(of course if you give 100 hounds a fox they will hunt it enthusiastically not caring how puny and small it really is….)”
talk about small prey….some dogs hunt insects. I guess in some climates those are the first food sources to appear after winter starvation and those who were able to catch lots of them survived….
so go figure.”
KB: The fact that dogs are relentless pursuers of even small prey without material return on the investment of energy is another manifestation of emotional capacity, cats are more easily deterred.
CR: “if they have more/less emotional capacity how is that an explanation ….like by which process is a species endowed or not with emotional capacity ???? it might be a way to an explanation but the final conclusion is still missing…”
KB: Emotional capacity becomes a meaningful answer once one assumes that a) all things are connected and b) the purpose of behavior is to turn energy into information, which is consciousness in general, and then sociability specifically. With this concept behavior makes sense because we can construct a model for the animal mind, apprehend how animals can communicate, especially across the species divide, given that emotion is a universal phenomenon. Nature and all living things are one networked intelligence with emotion the operating system of all consciousness, hence all behavior is a function of attraction and even if an individual acts in contravention to emotional conductivity via instincts and/or thoughts, they are guaranteed to acquire an emotional charge and their very “dysfunction” adds to the cumulative force of attraction that is now embodied in the system via their being. Emotional capacity is the ability to turn change/resistance/intensity into information, i.e. a feeling for another being.
one of the interesting points of the article is, as usual with Kevin, the hunting style,.
i would propose that lions and dogs who hunt in packs are more similar “emotionally”..
other subspecies or “aberrant” individual cats and dogs/wolves who are solitary would be more similar to each other in behaviour.
however, members of either species have shown to be capable and seemingly “decide” to be solitary for periods and in a group for other periods.
and while they are solitary of course they will be less likely to hunt large prey.
(of course if you give 100 hounds a fox they will hunt it enthusiastically not caring how puny and small it really is….)
talk about small prey….some dogs hunt insects. I guess in some climates those are the first food sources to appear after winter starvation and those who were able to catch lots of them survived….
so go figure.
I think this is the problem with behavioural science and why they are not getting anywhere. often in a hypothesis there are as many outlier behaviours as there are behaviours that a certain scientist would like to call “species specific”
that’s not how you pin down any really meaningful behaviours “exclusively” for dogs, that are truly never seen in cats etc.
this may be explained by purporting that there is a lot of potential for free will decision making and many variances in learning capacity in dogs cats chimpanzees, pretty much anything that has more than a lizard brain.
obviously the majority of cats are not particularly social compared with the majority of dogs. why ??? its not like humans have selectively bred cats to be less social….
nothing so far explains the outliers and nothing so far explains why cats by and large are motivated this way and dogs the other way
if they have more/less emotional capacity how is that an explanation ….like by which process is a species endowed or not with emotional capacity ???? it might be a way to an explanation but the final conclusion is still missing…
btw if a tall skinny guy has really short legs there is a high probability that they cannot cross country ski very fast….there is not a high probability that a tall skinny guy has really short legs but disregardless….
Capacity means the potential for containing or holding, it can also mean ability.
Empathy is defined by M-W as “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either ”
If you define emotional capacity as “feeling what another is feeling” then I question why you made up more jargon when there is a word that already defines this idea. Such unorthodox use of words smacks of quackery.
Your view on animal intelligence does not have any scientific supporting evidence and it is not shared by any expert on the field of animal intelligence. In fact, in the past two decades, evidence from neuroscience, pyschology, bioinformatics and other disciplines has pretty much killed the idea that human intelligence is much different than any other animal – which resonable given what we know about Evolution. Your assertion to the contrary is bold, but also false and again not shared by anyone who is an expert in the field of evolution.
Your assertion on this non-existent emotional capacity is circular. In fact, one could easily use the same sophistry you employ to argue that cats have higher emotional capacity than dogs. It is also dishonest to claim a common emotional dynamic without first clearly characterizing what this is; giving a full, fuctional definition. Strangely you use the word ‘elaboration’ quite often and yet you never elaborate anything.
New words and terms are invented because existing terms and definitions do not completely encompass phenomena. If there wasn’t a need for new definitions, language wouldn’t evolve.
My problem with the following definition:
“Empathy is “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another”
is that if an individual isn’t thinking then there can’t be empathy. This means that thinking, the highest order of cognition had to come first, and then there can be empathy, and yet empathy quite clearly has visceral impacts that are not under the volition of thinking. I don’t see how such a schema can be consistent with the biology of evolution by common descent. Empathy should come first which is why we see parent/offspring bonding, male/female bonding, herd contagion, swarm intelligence, the general infectiousness of emotional states. Additionally, what does “vicariously experiencing” actually mean? Isn’t vicarious more akin to feeling than thinking? Can’t someone find themselves vicariously identifying with something or someone and not even be aware of it until circumstances play things out, and aren’t they typically the last to become aware of their situation? Also, what makes empathy so noble in the case of human beings, is that it must typically resist the corrosive effects of thinking.
What I’m proposing is that there is a form of intelligence due to emotional capacity, that all organisms share in and that this core process becomes engaged when in a state of emotional syncopation with others. It’s a direct transference of feeling that is possible because all animals share the same emotional core that when in sync, enables an auto-tuning/feedback dynamic. In other words, the higher reaches of their central nervous systems become subordinated to their most primal processes (hunger and balance) and it is on this basis that two individuals of different species are able to communicate and connect, despite the barriers imposed by their genes and specialized features of their more highly evolved central nervous systems.
You may be right that no expert shares this point of view, but in point of fact, all the scientific evidence supports this thesis, some of which is cited on this site. Rather it’s the interpretation of the science that has to date missed the mark because the researcher always inserts their own thoughts into the adaptive, intelligence that is inherent in the principles of emotion itself. \
So if I’m right that emotion induces the feeling of flow, and that it moves according to its own internal principle of conductivity, then the more emotion moves the higher the adaptive capacity of the individual. That’s what I mean by emotional capacity. How much feeling of flow can an individual sustain before the intensity of change collapses this feeling. Emotional capacity is adaptive because emotion is the physical embodiment of the laws of nature and so it is internally and intuitively informing the individual about how its surroundings are energetically organized and how to capture the potential energy that is inherent in the phenomenon of change.
Elaboration means a process of development from raw emotion to a refined feeling (state of syncopation) between an individual and an object of attraction. I think you’ll find a few hundred thousand words on the subject on this site, and if interested I can suggest a couple of books that further elaborate on the subject as well.
To your point, If a cat had a higher emotional capacity than a dog, then it would exhibit more Drive, i.e. the capacity to convert the resistance to its expression of emotion, and the intensity of change in its surroundings, to an even stronger force of attraction. So, if a cat could be trained to run after a prey object worn on a persons’ arm and hang on while flung about and withstand faked stick hits, (like a couple of small Corgis I have known) and without any need to kill the person miming the stick hits, I will stand corrected.
“is that if an individual isn’t thinking then there can’t be empathy.”
No one of any note, or anyone who understand basic biology believes that dog’s don’t or can’t think. In fact all the evidence indicates their though processes are remarkably like a human’s. And while you may not understand how this fits in with evolution, the rest of the scientifc community doesn’t have that problem.
I fully understand what you proclaim, but there is simply no logical reason – and more importantly no scientific evidence that supports such a claim.Not only is the claim of emotional capacity a stretch, saying all organisms share in it is laughable. Was there a world-wide survey on biota done that I missed?
The reason no expert shares your views is because the evidence does not support it. You sound like the people from AiG who claim the science supports a 6000 year old planet. They to misuse and cherry pick some studies to “prove” their claim and in a similar way they also rely on redefining words to achieve their goal.They too claim that the people doing the research are misinterpreting the very facts they generate. It seems only the self appointed experts with unorthodox world views know what they are talking about.
BTW when you say “emotion is the physical embodiment of the laws of nature” you are saying nothing, less than nothing since emotion itself is not physical. There is more truth in me saying that spitting in someone’s face is physical embodiment of the laws of nature. Since everything falls under nature, saying that it falls under nature is worthless and not at all instructive.
I’m sorry but your second attempt at elaboration also didn’t elaborate anything. Even as an argument of semantics it fails. The laborious, and torturous path you have to take to explain this convoluted idea should give any reader pause to doubt these claims. There are a lot of labels or re-labeling, a lot of claims, but I see nothing that suggests it’s true. I could just as well use the same type of sophistry to claim that dogs have no emotion or cats have more emotional capacity. Since it all rests on your personal definitions of reality. We know a cat has more emotional capacity because it exhibits less drive and the ability to resist the expression of emotion is what emotional capacity is all about.
Many readers find the idea credible because it’s the only explanation that can account for why we can protection train a domestic dog (and this can actually increase its social capacity), whereas it cannot be done with a domestic cat.
So your readers don’t know why different species behave differently. No wonder they can be taken so easily.
My readers have high emotional capacity, i.e. the capacity to feel what’s true.
i think you can put whatever words you like to try to explain a theory, because its the concept of the theory not the words that have to be grasped,
if anyone else out there working in the canine world can put their own take on it down on paper or otherwise, i’ve yet to see it,
for me the real issue is about understanding dogs and if you have a fair understanding but cant find anyone on the net or anywhere else to
fill in the blanks in a way that makes complete and utter sense, because at the end of the day my dog is my proof, the words are irrelevant,
the dog is where the theory is proved, not the net,,
Actually, it’s because the readers can’t be taken so easily that brings them here.
@ Sang/John…AGREED‼ I understand the value of dissent but sure would appreciate factual dissent as opposed to dissent that is limited to insult with the sole intent (from my vantage point) of undermining another. Just sayin….
“The hunting to social linkage is of critical importance to dog owners because when a dog’s hunting drive is properly developed, then a healthy social disposition and willing obedience is ensured.” KB, would you define “hunting drive” and “hunting template” ? Is this simply ability to hold a positive feeling during changes in frames of reference? How does movement of the predator polarity dog after object of attraction play into it?
The hunting template is when circumstances are in place (negative-as-access-to-positive) in the dogs’ perception of the moment so that the dog can move that last .01% through its body/mind as a pipe. Hunting or Prey Drive is the capacity to find a new point of fixation during a shift in circumstances whereas an individual in prey instinct is going on the load/overload model and can’t incorporate new negatives as part of the social or group construct. So when a dog is in Drive there is a state of synchronization with the negative and the capacity to align and synchronize with new negatives so that emotional coupling can occur and in this collectivized state, greater objects of resistance can be overcome. The synchronization allows the individual to hold onto the feeling for the positive during intense change and when the predatory aspect moves, the observing individual feels energized rather than destabilized.
I have taken some video footage of my dogs’ behaviour which I would be interested in Kevin’s feedback on. This seemed like the most fitting discussion to put it on. The video is in two parts so that it can be loaded on youtube. All 3 dogs were in the garden but Logan was having a stressful time, reason unknown. Possibly because it was Guy Fawkes the night before and fireworks have been going off for the last few days – he was clearly very stressed. After watching behaviours I decided to video it and the interactions with the other 2 dogs. Prior to the video I had been grooming Logan, with long deep strokes, trying to get him to calm. Archie was sniffing him obviously trying to ‘socialise’ in some way. Then Archie started barking at Logan. I feel it is a good example of Jack and Archie trying to get Logan’s energy flowing, but I may be misreading it. Also, they both start barking again, you can almost feel them trying to get the energy moving
http://youtu.be/-IqtCdHLHSE
http://youtu.be/D_k_YtVvexQ
(i’m not sure if the links will work or if this is an acceptable use of your blog – apologies in advance if inappropriate)
I’m going to preface my interpretation with the reminder that it’s vital to interpret the dog’s behavior as a group system rather than one mind relative to another mind and so the language that one dog is trying to calm the other dog would be in error, whereas the language that one dog is trying to get the other dog’s energy moving, would be accurate. The latter is accurate while the former is not because the former implies that the one dog is trying to change the mental state of the other, but in an energy system, since all the dogs have projected their e-cog into each other, if Logan is holding back then Jack’s energy is encumbered as well and so in reality, the dog is trying to get its own energy moving by interacting with the hold out because it feels stuck as stuck as Logan when it looks at Logan. At any rate, the problem for Logan is that whatever energy is in the group, so for example the other dog dogs are definitely feeling animated, Logan is perceiving this as making him the object of attention, which indeed it does because he’s the one who is holding back, and so being confined he seeks refuge. This is consistent with the fireworks incident because Logan is perceiving that as predator energy which simultaneously means it’s focused on him. And we can also see that all the dogs are orienting to the horizon, and this is because of the hunting template that is organizing the way emotion works so if the dogs could leave the yard their energies would be collectivized on an actual prey. At any rate, when the two dogs get playful with each other, this is raising their state to look for the prey, and now Logan’s fear becomes realized, because he’s holding back and acting prey like which draws them his way. However their attention transmutes from simple prey/predator module, to sexual module and they sniff his genitals and try to mount, and this tactile arousal gets him somewhat animated as well, which again is part of all becoming synchronized and organized for the hunt. It’s also important to note that these dogs are whole (I’m guessing that Logan is neutered) and so they are inclined toward sensuality rather than sharpness. This is why they bark at Logan rather than trying to get a tussle going and we can see a little sharpness in Logan at the beginning when they pressed in on him. So if the dogs were free to follow the natural course of events rather than being confined, they would all be off on a hunt and I wouldn’t be surprised to find Logan particularly intense about it because he probably feels most comfortable when on the prey rather than pressing the flesh with his fellows. Also note that the dog barking off camera becomes that which can coalesce their combined focus.
Thankyou Kevin for your quick and thorough explanation – you are right Logan is neutered. It may be a development between them – previously when Jack tried to play with the lab Logan would intervene and warn Jack off – there was a bit of that in the video and I have been taking Logan away from that situation to let Archie and Jack play without Logan intervening. I’m not sure but I think Logan might now be looking to get out the way when Jack and Archie are together in the garden since I have started doing this – would that make sense? I’m not sure if that fits with your model though (not remembering but not forgetting) but makes me wonder if I am doing the right thing by taking Logan away?
The problem for Logan is that being neutered, it’s harder for him to sync up with Jack and the lab, so when they get going that much energy makes him feel destabilized, so he’s trying to keep their frequency and intensity from escalating to the point wherein it activates his Deep Inner Stress (the last .01%). He’s not trying to “warn Jack off” per se, but keep the energy they’re generating below a certain intensity level because he can’t handle it and so he gets sharp with them. So the dogs pick up the imprint that energy can’t move unless they sync up with Logan, which is why they keep checking in with him in the videos you posted. It’s one group mind as an energy system and Logan is the gear wheel that’s gumming up. So yes it is good to have them alone to play because it keeps Logan out of their way, and the more they gain gratification with each other, the less it matters to them whether Logan is resisting their movement. They’ll just learn to tune him out and be dynamos in their own right. Meanwhile Logan can have his peace. Then, the more energy he learns to give to you, and get that .01% positively gratified, the less he’ll attribute it to their doings. Keep On Pushing!
Thanks Kevin for that additional explanation. I’m trying to understand that group think that you are describing between the 3 dogs with respect to what I see with my hamiltonstovare. As reported elsewhere since pushing he has now found it much easier to get out of the yard and go hunting – he has the confidence to scale the wall and get out whereas for the previous 5 years it contained him – and can will be out for hours. Theoretically the other two could go with him but don’t. When we are all out together he will go scenting off on his own – how can I put that behaviour in the ‘group think’ framework? Does it suggest his hunting instinct is stronger than the pull of the group system? Or does it suggest he is more in instinct than in drive? He seems to be just driving himself – maybe the history of being one of two litter mates for the first year of their lives? The behaviour I am seeing doesn’t ‘seem’ to confirm what you are describing. Thankyou for your views
First of all to be clear on terminology, it’s a group mind based on feel, or a “group feel” rather than group think, although I know what you mean. But this is an important distinction to revisit because every true feeling is a social, group mind as each individual’s feeling is the counterbalance of the others. This is because when a dog has a feeling for something, he has projected his “self” into that object of attraction and then goes by the laws of motion as in every action has equal and opposite reaction. This is the basis of the group mind as an auto-tuning/feedback dynamic. The projection of the self, the emotional center-of-gravity, is where the dog’s physical center-of-gravity is going to be in the future, be it making contact with another individual or bringing down the prey. All of these feelings are in service to the hunting mandate so it’s only in our mind that one dog is leaving the group when in pursuit of the prey. In the dog’s mind he is still in the group since he’s merely projecting his self forward into the horizon, the same self he projects into his group mates. It’s not a contradiction, it’s just the way our human intellect frames our perceptions because we see the self as something relative to other selves, and events as changing in terms of a chronology of causes and effects. So if one dog takes off, the other may very well tend to hover closer because just like a wolf pack, some go off to hunt while the “aunt” or” uncle” wolf stays near the den with the cubs, i.e. at the center of the circle. The ones hunting aren’t leaving the group, they are in their minds returning to the group by chasing the prey, which they then sure enough bring back to the cubs.
Right – brilliant, understand totally, makes sense – and sorry, one more question – to keep Jack from hunting on his own..keep on pushing? From your experience do you think I will be able to manage the behaviour if I increase the energy he can give to me – or am I kidding myself on 🙂
The bottom line is whether Jack will want to play tug/push of war with you no-matter-what, with the pushing for food, and speaking on command, being important components of getting there. Then, you will be able to use obedience and control in order to establish a new hunting template. So first you have to give him the answer, i.e/ what is he’s supposed to bite, and then give him the problem, i.e. stay with me and you will get to the bite. With a hound that’s had his own definition of hunting success, it’s a bit of a process but it’s the only way we can live with a dog and have it free in our life. Hope this clarifies.
It clarifies, thankyou for your patience, we will keep on working on those lines 🙂
[…] Emotional Capacity https://naturaldogtraining.com/blog/emotional-capacity … […]