Scientists use the following as an example of reasoning and subterfuge in an animal. A blue jay is in a tree while its fellow blue jays are scavenging some food on the ground below. As a corvid it is capable of mimicking many sounds, such as the screech of a hawk and it emits just such a screech which immediately scatters its fellow jays to the wind. Then the clever bird descends and enjoys the feast all to itself. Is there any explanation other than thinking?
Where is this study? The end result was that the jay settled on the behavior that created a successful outcome…I’m surprised a scientist would actually read intent into this scenario since it so perfectly fits the operant conditioning model. You’d have to be a pretty bad behaviorist to jump to the conclusion that the jay thought about it beforehand. 🙂
cannot find the study, too many articles about the darn baseball team
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other
how about this one though
It sounds just like the dog and ball/bone, barking at imaginary foes to trick its companions. So the cause is the same, a triggering of a physical memory of being blocked.
And the operant conditioning model doesn’t help, you need a feedback signal within the model, not simple stimulus-response. Operant conditioning doesn’t account for desire.
Yes it’s exactly the same as the dog/bone scenario and I think it can be summed up even more concisely given that every feeling arises from physical memory in the quantitative sense as emotional ballast. So the blue jay shrieks like a hawk because when looking down on its fellow jays, it feels just like a hawk, they are reduced to small prey figures, and because it has the vocal capacity to sound like a hawk, then its feeling of being a hawk comes out of its throat and beak so that it does indeed sound like a hawk. The other jays scatter and have no capacity to learn they’ve been “tricked” because in point of fact they haven’t been tricked and they probably all find themselves in that vantage point from time to time and perform the same behavior and it always works, in abject defiance of the current scientific models that are trying to find examples of thinking. If Jays could think, then by now that trick should never work.
In a parallel fashion this is also related to the dog dragging the other dog out of the highway. The dog hit by a car is in a vulnerable state, if the other dog has projected its physical memory into that dog, then it feels vulnerable as well and will be motivated to to drag the dog from that place of exposure to the degree of which it has projected its physical memory into that other dog. This is exactly akin to an animal wanting to cache some food, the food out in the open makes the dog feel exposed and vulnerable and it buries it to protect its “self.”
This is not a mechanical interpretation of nature, it’s the opposite. Emotion, energy, by virtue of the principle of conductivity enables the higher social virtues of altruism, cooperation and faithfulness. It’s embedded in the makeup of the natural world, something that has to evolve into physical manifestation and be expressed by consciousness, but doesn’t spring from the minds of conscious beings as if fabricated by a mental machinery.
i think also my large dog has figured out that if he pretends he has found a squirrel somewhere off the path the other 2 will follow him there, then he can loop back to me and get extra treats.
what kind of a signal does the leading dog give to the rest of the pack, that he.she has found prey ?
it says in an online article that wolves emit high pitched yelps to notify others of their location.
but often I hear nothing. are these sounds in the range that humans cannot hear ?
because even if they cannot see the leading dog, the others suddenly accelerate and get to the location as quickly as possible when prey is discovered or a pretense of prey.
(I guess this is another stump the chump question?)
kbehan said “If Jays could think, then by now that trick should never work.”
Actually whether or not Jays can think, that trick should and probably will work everytime. Jays don’t have the time to turn and see if it is a real hawk or not, not if indeed it is a real hawk. If they did then everytime it wasn’t a trick a hawk would have a tasty Jay dinner (or breakfast).
In order for it to be a feat of duplicity as claimed by science, then it’s a thought. And this would mean that a Jay is smart enough to yell “sniper” to dupe every other Jay to run for cover since time immemorial. But then at the same time a Jay is never smart enough to realize it’s been duped over the same time immemorial. Sounds like a self-defeating logic loop to me. It works every time because it’s not about thinking. Whenever a Jay finds itself FEELING like a hawk (because it is overhead on a high branch looking at the now relatively small birds on the ground as prey objects) then it SOUNDS like a hawk and no Jay can ever learn the distinction because when it’s in the same position and emotional state, it also will act the way it FEELS. Something this simple disproves all the current science on the animal mind.
While I agree that “current science” doesn’t have a proper grasp on animal awareness, I don’t believe that the Jay lets out a hawk’s sound because it feels like a hawk. They can’t feel like a hawk anymore than the hawk can feel like a mouse.
If the Jay actually felt like a hawk then it would not feel like a Jay at that moment, and therefore would let its Jay guard down allowing the possibility of a predator attack.
As I said before ” WHETHER OR NOT Jays can think, that trick should and probably will work everytime.” Let’s presume for a moment that the Jay can think as science might want to believe. When it lets out the screech, it would know that the other Jays would leave because of the possibility of predation. They don’t have time to check to see if the screech is real or not. Just as a loud unexpected noise might cause a human to seek cover. Without the chance to ever look up and see if the threat is real, the other Jays (still presuming thought) could easily decide to mimic a hawk at a later time, with the same result.
If a Jay were able to feel like a hawk and thus act like a hawk, it would be putting itself in the hawks place which would require at least some small amount of thought or at least instinct. If it felt like a hawk everytime it was on a higher plane than its fellow Jays, it would never be able to come down to join them. So obviously it can differentiate between proper times to mimic a hawk and improper times.
“Letting its guard down” is a thought that is being inserted into the discussion by us, it is not part of the energy dynamic at work with the blue jay. The blue jay is polarized with predatory energy in that moment, so from the standpoint of the hawk, it might not even feel like prey to the hawk (although it might, but the blue jay’s going to get eaten sometime anyway, so that doesn’t really matter). It isn’t just the blue jays relative to each other, the hawk is also part of the group dynamic.
The predatory energy the blue jay feels will be attracted by another something’s (probably another blue jay’s) prey energy, then the blue jay will feel like a blue jay again. The place where it resonates on the predatory/prey continuum is in its physical makeup, so that is a constant, but the flow of energy (triggered when the blue jay looks at something, the blue jay has an instantaneous feeling induced by what it looks at) is what changes and creates the feelings.
Also all of this happens so fast, if birds were thinking (comparing one moment to another, one point of view to another) their brains would be so big they could not fly, there would be no birds (or no mammals),the only conscious beings would be the size of houses with rooms to fit our huge supercomputer-sized brains.
The blue jay has NO predatory “energy” unless it is actually in the act of seeking food. There isn’t anything of a predatory nature when the jay is interacting with fellow jays (in non-food related situations), just hierarchical “energy”. I only use the term energy since that is what you seem to understand. Of course, your understanding of energy and animal interaction has less logic and proof (or common sense) than most of the scientific or logical explanation on the topic.
Heather said,”The predatory energy the blue jay feels will be attracted by another something’s (probably another blue jay’s) prey energy, then the blue jay will feel like a blue jay again.” I and probably most other rational people would have to disagree. I imagine a blue jay always feels like a blue jay. If not I’m sure once it figured out the power instilled by “feeling” like a hawk, that it would continue to be the hawk. Corvids (such as Jays) use tools to solve problems, acting like a hawk would be a very useful tool. Corvids are considered to possibly be the most intelligent of the birds, maybe even more intelligent than parrots. I’ve actully seen and heard parrots mimic the ring of a phone to get someone to come to their room, as well as just calling a person’s name.
You can describe relationships between beings or things, actions and interactions of being or things in many ways. Using made-up terminology and assumptions does no one any good. It just keeps the facts and true understanding from being found.
I really don’t understand why this topic was on the “natural dog training” site in the first place. Honestly, trying to use the same ideas to explain the behavior of a jay as used to explain that of dogs just helps show the invalidity of Mr. Behan’s work anyway. Dog behavior and mentality hasn’t changed for centuries. This natural method might use different techniques, but the dog reacts to them for the same reasons that it reacts to any other training, whether that reaction is positive or negative.
The first domesticated dog’s would have responded much the same way dog’s do now, and that is mostly from a hierarchical pack mindset. All it has to do with feelings, is where the dog feels it fits into the pack.
So the blue jay sits on the continuum at exactly zero, that doesn’t make much sense, because you already said that it would be predatory relative to food, so that means it possesses predatory energy relative to the food, putting food closer to zero than the blue jay. That is exactly the point of the model. “Made-up” terminology is simply the very definition of language. You may argue about the meanings of terms all day, that’s a great exercise and I absolutely love it, it is part of what I get paid to do every day. But once you assign the meanings then you have to look at the things they are describing and evaluate those things on their merits. So then you’re saying you’re back at the pack model and you can compare and contrast that with the NDT model. Or not.
this may or may not be relevant to this discussion. however, i thought i’d interject bc when some people hear the word “energy”, they have an assumption or interpretation of its meaning in the context of behavior. most often, people have the tendency to think of the word “energy” in this application as new age, pseudo physics mambo jumbo.
however, ndt means energy in a quite literal sense, where the information is in the energy which imparts on our behavior.
when a person hears a train whistle in the distance, it evokes a particular feeling. there is a difference between this feeling, and the one when you hear the sound of a train heading toward you. even an ambulance has some resonant qualities, only the moment after it passes.
one evokes a longing, romantic and pleasant mood. the other is uncomfortable, gripping and stressful.
but we notice, nonetheless, that we are informed (our feelings w/out thought) solely by the ‘energy’ of the sound wave, the amplitude/frequency/modulations, in which they have reached us. all this without thought, intention or even experience. also notice, that the feelings evoked are universal, evidenced by their employment for effect in hollywood!
Billy, what do you think I mean by the term “energy?”
Heather said “So the blue jay sits on the continuum at exactly zero.” This is part at least of my point. “Continuum” and “zero” in reference to it mean absolutely nothing unless their meaning is a given. Which is usually the case, unless you apply them to something that they have no business being applied to, such as animal behavior. At best the terms used for natural dog training or at least Kevin Behan’s natural dog training are terms that already have names and he just prefers to call them something else while making the new tems sound like just that, new terms.
Either animals act on instinct or think and act on instinct. Humans do the latter with more thought than instinct usually. What you seem to be calling energy, might be more rightly called instinct. Mr. Behan hasn’t found a new form of training or even really evolved an older form of training. Man has been able to train dogs, be friends with dogs, work with dogs, etc. for centuries. The dog still reacts and interacts the same, and for the same reasons. Now if his method brought out in dogs something more than had been seen before then sure, it would be something new instead of basically just training tips.
Most of what I have read about his method is just ridiculous.
One of Kevin’s quotes:
Basically I want my dog to be as alive around me as possible, and I don’t think that gets in the way of him being obedient either. For example, if I were with a puppy, and we were to come upon a young deer, and he gets all full of energy, I don’t tell him no, or ‘bad dog’… or sit or behave or anything… I start to pet him and say ‘good dog’… and as soon as he starts going towards the deer, I will turn around and run away as fast as I can. After he goes a short distance, he’ll soon realize I’m not with him… and then that same energy he felt for the deer, he’ll invest in searching for me. Finally when he finds me, I pick up a stick and we’ll wrestle, and that’s what catching a deer feels like…
The philosophy [of Natural Dog Training] is essentially not saying ‘I know what my dog should do now’. Five millions years of evolved instinct is telling the dog that this is the way it has to be: when a wolf sees a deer, guess what, he should go catch it! So I’m not going to try and override that. I’m going to work with it, redirect it, and channel it. And it has to feel as good to the dog as it would naturally. That’s the key.
First off, I’m sure he has never caught a deer by hand and doesn’t know what it feels like. I’m also pretty sure that the puppy would have never caught a deer. I know this was an example, but since neither has ever caught a deer how can either know what it feels like, much less how would Mr. Behan have any idea whether or not catching him felt like catching a deer since the puppy can’t tell him that. The puppy may only want to chase the deer to find out what it is or possibly what its not. It already knows what Kevin is so chasing him would not give the same feeling to the puppy.
Furthermore, a wolf is not always going to chase a deer, and if it does it probably wouldn’t do it alone since it has its pack. Food and prey drive are not the most important things to a dog, but how it fits into its family are. If the prey drive were the main driving force then food aggression would be the main problem that pet owners face.
When Heather says,”The predatory energy the blue jay feels will be attracted by another something’s (probably another blue jay’s) prey energy, then the blue jay will feel like a blue jay again.” Then their really is no other explanation than some kind of “new age, pseudo physics mambo jumbo” as Sean says. Ones energy being attracted by another is nonsense. Yes language is made-up terms. I more precisely meant changing the meanings of known language to match your ideas and assumptions does no one any good.
Billy you are obviously disenchanted with what you found on this site.
are you interested in the fundamentals of animal behaviour ?
if so, you might know it gets complicated soon after you look at anything in this field
…behavioural experts are tearing their hairs out right about now because they cannot seem to make any progress…
it is not helpful to argue about “terms” and about calling a very experienced dog trainer’s theories ridiculous – especially when they are no more or less ridiculous than what research-grant-winning scientists can come up with.
or are you interested in dog training pure and simple ? then try the exercises and see if they jive with you and your dog, and if they do be happy, if not move on
Kevin, Billy is echoing concerns here that I have been making, as have quite a few other similar commenters/reviewers on the web. I am no expert on the matter, but I sense that the behaviors common to folks like yourself with a degree of aspergers are at the heart of the many common observations.
From http://www.buzzle.com/articles/asperger-syndrome-behavior.html
Tendency to use an excess of words and metaphors, which only the user can understand; Failure to comprehend the intricacies of a situation and face difficulties in understanding a subject in depth; Speech is overly formal or idiosyncratic; Pitch and intonations used are abnormal; Might have an exceptional vocabulary but fail to understand the nuances of language; Take deep interest in specific narrow areas without having a broad understanding of the subject.
Not sure if this is helpful, but it might be. It is offered with good intent.
Yes, the intellect always has the best of intentions. Too bad about Aspergers, I guess we’ll have to dismiss Temple Grandin as a credible source of animal behavior.
The obvious flaw in your reasoning is that hundreds of thousands of dogs are rewarded for not chasing deer, and yet after thousands of positive reinforcements, all of that flies out the window and the dog chases the deer. Or answer this one, a caribou fends off wolves for five to six years of its life simply by standing its ground. Then one day when it’s feeling ill, it does the most cost ineffective thing it can do in complete defiance of a lifetime of learning by attempting to outrun a pack of wolves, which sure enough kill it. All the other caribou in the herd bear witness to its folly but guess what, years later each one might succumb to the same disconnect as well. Why? Both of these syndromes have the exact same thing in common because they exist along a continuum. Meanwhile modern behaviorism can only smooth over the gaps in its logic by attributing thoughts to animals. Some of us are not satisfied with this intellectual fudging. We’re looking for a true answer.
I think if you have ever played with magnets as a kid and you simply looked at this statement “Ones energy being attracted by another is nonsense” you might be able to see how it is a waste of time arguing about how someone says something. Why not just try to get to the meaning of what someone is saying and evaluate that.
“Man has been able to train dogs, be friends with dogs, work with dogs, etc. for centuries. The dog still reacts and interacts the same, and for the same reasons.”
This is true, you are only saying that you think the reasons are X and NDT says Y.
“I more precisely meant changing the meanings of known language to match your ideas and assumptions does no one any good.”
There are no terms that are being used inconsistent with regularly accepted meanings – if there is a special meaning of a term in a certain context, that is explicit.
People seem to have a problem when they see a term that isn’t in their existing vocabulary…used to describe the exact phenomenon that is being presented as new information from anything that has been said before…so this objection is something I don’t get. How would you describe a newly discovered phenomenon, with complex interactions, otherwise? I actually think that objection boils down to one thing: lack of critical thinking skills of the reader. I suppose it could also be the false belief that somehow everything to be known is known and has been described before. I don’t see a way to overcome those problems, they have nothing to do with NDT.
If you just don’t want to think about the concepts, because the aspects of animal behavior that you are curious about seem to fit nicely in the model you are familiar with, then that is fine but at least be clear about the reasons.
Everyone throws around the term “science” but at its heart science is about inquiry, curiousity, not being content to throw things that don’t make sense into a bucket for “exceptions” to the rule. There aren’t any exceptions in nature, there is order, even if some aspects of this order are not yet in full view.
Burl if you weren’t in fact fired from your professor job vs “deciding” to retire to spend more time with your dogs…you dodged a bullet! I run across emotionally unstable ex-teacher types often enough that it gives me great pause putting my kids on the bus in the morning.
@Burl: are you really serious? Come on now. I tend not to believe anything anyone says when they make comments such as that last one, so the good news is that this puts an end to your credibility.
You are also trying to imply that there’s a growing ‘anti-NDT movement’, so if you would like some recommendations on the forums where people discuss the theory – and the progress they’ve seen with their dogs, – I’d be happy to point you in that direction. Although it also sounds like you have seen some progress with your own? At any rate, I think lively debate is great, so I hope your comments can return to their original caliber.
@Billy: Everything you write has an assumption built into it, and so consequently, your challenges to this theory are based off of assumptions as well.
In addition you wrote: “I know this was an example, but since neither has ever caught a deer how can either know what it feels like, much less how would Mr. Behan have any idea whether or not catching him felt like catching a deer since the puppy can’t tell him that.”
So…. what is the point then with any training model? Do dogs suddenly learn to speak when trained via dominance? Any other trainer would say we know X worked because we saw Y behavior, so I’m not quite sure why there is this critique.
Besides, you missed the whole point of that example. A dog is obviously ‘energized’ by the deer, right? There’s something, whatever you want to say that it is, ‘telling’ the dog that that animal over there is prey and he should go get it. NDT is saying, what happens to that X/feeling/instinct/whatever? It just disappears? No, it has to go somewhere, so the dog LEARNS that when he’s energized by the deer, his owner is going to have something for him instead.
Sorry to dash your apparent glee, Heather, but I freely decided to retire. Mature response though – thanks for the input.
“You are also trying to imply that there’s a growing ‘anti-NDT movement.”
No, not at all. Just that those comments/reviews I refer to point out very similar misgivings with the scheme and its presentation. Suggestions for improvement or alternate understandings are met with complete dismissal. This is not how a healthy grasping for novelty progresses. There I go, thinking…
Seb wrote,”Besides, you missed the whole point of that example. A dog is obviously ‘energized’ by the deer, right? There’s something, whatever you want to say that it is, ‘telling’ the dog that that animal over there is prey and he should go get it. NDT is saying, what happens to that X/feeling/instinct/whatever? It just disappears? No, it has to go somewhere, so the dog LEARNS that when he’s energized by the deer, his owner is going to have something for him instead.”
Actually, I do agree that the dog is energized by the presence of the deer. If by energize you mean the physiological and psychological reaction the dog has to wanting to chase the deer. You know higher blood pressure, increased adrenaline, tail wagging excitement, etc. However, their is absolutely no proof that the dog thinks of the deer as prey. We have no idea whether or not the modern bowl fed domesticated dog thinks of anything as actual prey. I would imagine that may be why some people have a hard time turning their dogs to a raw diet. So if they do not necessarily see it as prey then what else might it be? It could very possibly be just a curiosity. I’ve known many dogs that would happily ignore an animal in the woods or something else interesting just by being given the command of “leave it”, and some that would ignore it just because they knew it wasn’t what their human wanted them to be concerned with.
As far as the energy going somewhere the dog just went on to the next task or continued enjoying its walk. If you believe this creates stress in the dog because of the energy not having anywhere to go then everytime a wolf pack fails at catching a deer every member of the pack would be stressed quite often. This would lead to conditions individually and in the pack as a whole that would grow increasingly detrimental to the packs success.
If you call my dog being excited to see me in the morning energy or her being happy to play fetch energy, then sure, why not, she is pretty energetic. However, much of the terminology used here, and the way it is used is misleading. Much of it has meaning but in other contexts, and using it for construing animal behavior is inaccurate. There are much better and easier ways to describe the training being done, and many already have. This training is no dfferent than any other in that you work with the individual dog, and react and train to its needs. You might use a few different methods, but they all work for the same reasons and in the same ways as any other successful training. It is because of pack mindset and not prey drive that they work.
hello people… this is a blog and not a systematic presentation of a theory as per publication in the Scientific American or some such like.
it is fun to throw ideas around.
it is fun to see where it leads, where the gaps might be, maybe when we all see this book in January, it will all be different…
if someone said, kevin your energy theory does not work because of such and such a scientific publication where it shows cleary that the X Gland has too much Y in it so this is counter indicative to your theory….
then that would be a suggestion that, you know, could be met one way or another by Kevin the inventor of the theory. Then we would know if he is just an unrealistic bastard or if he can listen to the voice of “reason”.
I have not seen anything that threatens his theory here or otherwise, definitely not by Billy who made me think about how our society could do FUI (Facebooking Under the Influence) as a misdemeanour charge.
Or Burl who seemed to be under the impression for years on end, that having dogs sit in a motionless boat while he is not catching fish is a way to entertain them….
A dog might or might not be able to imagine what it would be like to catch a deer, but a human with a smidgeon of imagination certainly can.
Humans like wolves are incapable of catching a deer on their own, (unless in a trap)
Humans had to hunt and use spears (and wolves) a few hundred thousand years ago…. to catch deer…
maybe somewhere in the lizard brain, there is still this feeling, instinct or whatever. in a human. can we get our individual selves back to that ?
Of course a human as well as a dog or wolf can also be “the cat that walks alone”. We are able to survive alone.
in many ways that might be less annoying that being with all these other irritating humans…on facebook…
…and when we feel ready to die, we throw ourselves in front of a train, or, like the caribou, start to run when a pack of wolves is watching.
Kevin has a lot of imagination and a lot of first hand experience of intelligently observing dogs.
He wants to speak for dogs and thinks they are misunderstood and treated inadequately by most humans, I agree with him !!!!!!!
breeding dogs and not caring what their inner life might be, create industrial pollution beyond belief, overpopulation so we have more “tax payers”, etc etc the human species does what they want, without considering the consequences… but i disgress.
Slightly confusing descriptions, lacks of schematics etc, mental illness and illicit substance abuse aside, i still am waiting for someone on this blog (or anywhere) to bring up something that would truly discredit the majority of the elements of which his theory is comprised….
In fact you are using terms in a confusing and therefore misleading way: For example you say: “Actually, I do agree that the dog is energized by the presence of the deer.” So given that you are criticizing NDT for not being clear, what is your definition of energy? In other words, what does “higher blood pressure, increased adrenaline, tail wagging excitement” constitute? Next, you are assuming that failure which leads to stress would thereby “grow increasingly detrimental to the packs success.” Yet African Wild Hunting Dogs always succeed in their hunts whereas wolves in contrast suffer a pitiful one-out-of-thirteen success rate and yet the domestic dog evolved from the wolf, not the African Wild Hunting Dog. This fact of nature contradicts your model. How then can you offer a criticism of a method that manifests very clear terminology and claim that all methods “work for the same reasons” when you are confused about basic terms?
“However, their is absolutely no proof that the dog thinks of the deer as prey. We have no idea whether or not the modern bowl fed domesticated dog thinks of anything as actual prey.”
That’s correct.. a dog doesn’t THINK anything is prey. It is something that is felt (which can be measured in part as a physiological response).
“We have no idea whether or not the modern bowl fed domesticated dog thinks of anything as actual prey.”
A Border Collie isn’t good at herding because it likes to stare at sheep. A Doberman isn’t good at protection because it’s in a bad mood. A Labrador Retriever doesn’t chase after a bird because it thinks they’re pretty.
These breeds are tuned to specific stages of the prey making sequence. They are predators, and the ability to make prey is absolutely essential for their ability to work along side humans.
“This would lead to conditions individually and in the pack as a whole that would grow increasingly detrimental to the packs success.”
You mean like the hierarchical behaviors seen in captive wolves that don’t get to hunt at all? Wild wolves rarely, if at all, display any sort of dominant behaviors. The NDT theory wholly addresses how and why this works the way it does.
“However, much of the terminology used here, and the way it is used is misleading. Much of it has meaning but in other contexts, and using it for construing animal behavior is inaccurate.”
How so? Take the time to approach the theory with an open, curious mind instead of outright dismissal of something that doesn’t conform to your concrete beliefs. Otherwise, you’ve absolutely nothing to gain.
“This training is no dfferent than any other in that you work with the individual dog, and react and train to its needs.”
Was this supposed to be a criticism?
“It is because of pack mindset and not prey drive that they work.”
Very outdated and outmoded view that only exists today as popular myth. While science seems to be in the ‘dogs-think-just-like-humans’ phase currently, the pack hierarchy crap is long gone by those on the forefront of trying to understand dogs.
@Burl:
“Suggestions for improvement or alternate understandings are met with complete dismissal.”
Yes, you’re actually exactly right. I completely dismiss the idea that the author has a psychological condition. Furthermore, I will implore you to start improving your suggestions.
@Billy:
“I’ve known many dogs that would happily ignore an animal in the woods or something else interesting just by being given the command of “leave it”, and some that would ignore it just because they knew it wasn’t what their human wanted them to be concerned with.”
But don’t you want to know why one dog does that while the other won’t? I understand you don’t agree with NDT’s, so what theory do you have/know of that provides you with this answer?
“If you believe this creates stress in the dog because of the energy not having anywhere to go then everytime a wolf pack fails at catching a deer every member of the pack would be stressed quite often.”
I do think NDT would actually agree with you here. But the difference is that the wolf has a natural environment in which to figure out this stress. There are plenty of outputs. It’s why people came up with dominance in the first place – they saw the output but attributed it to a leader being dominant instead. Our modern dogs simply don’t have this luxury. We rile them up in the house, and then expect them to lie down and go to sleep when we’re done with it.
“This training is no dfferent than any other in that you work with the individual dog, and react and train to its needs. You might use a few different methods, but they all work for the same reasons and in the same ways as any other successful training.”
The majority of people seem to come to NDT because no other training methods work. And when you’re dealing with an aggressive dog, who has bitten children or other animals, I think those “few different methods” actually have a world of difference between them.
Thank you all for your input, and disagreements, that were expected. Some of you might not agree with my methods, but honestly I wrote in a confrontational manner intentionally. I don’t know enough about the method to have a valid opinion one way or the other, but simply made a few points with information from other forums and sites to get multiple input from those that felt challenged. I personally enjoy confrontation and sometimes prefer information from the morally outraged. Oh, and I’m working on a paper on human behavior through multiple lines of communication, and since I am also interested in canine behavior I though I would join the two and mabey learn something useful.
Thanks again.
Seb: “I completely dismiss the idea that the author has a psychological condition. Furthermore, I will implore you to start improving your suggestions.”
Kevin has previously discussed his aspergers. I merely point to potentially constructive observations in relation to this. But, as I noted, “suggestions for improvement or alternate understandings are met with complete dismissal.”
There’s nothing wrong with confrontation. I enjoy when someone has the temerity to directly confront the energy theory, too bad you can’t develop the arguments. But unless you understand the energy theory whatever “multiple lines of communication” you come up with is going to be what has already been said. When you’re done, please post your paper here and I will review it in light of an energy model.
Kbehan:”But unless you understand the energy theory whatever “multiple lines of communication” you come up with is going to be what has already been said. When you’re done, please post your paper here and I will review it in light of an energy model.”
Again, from the previously noted link, The patients of Asperger syndrome … commonly indulge in one-sided conversations and fail to understand the interest of their listeners. Long speeches about one’s own interests and verbalization of one’s thoughts are commonly seen in individuals with Asperger syndrome. A marked fear of change and lack of flexibility are some of the other common characteristics.
After all the varied criticisms and positive recommendations for clarity I’ve offered here – to zero avail – I guess I’ll pass on posting that paper.
The case study you’re offering here is of your own mind, to wit, the denial of emotion and feeling by the intellect.
Also, if someone is going to admit that they fabricate their posts, and then inflict this on a forum predicated on the good will and honest intent of its participants, then thereafter there’s nothing that can be said to such a person or to be gained from hearing from such a person. People get mad and discussions can get heated and hyper-rhetorical but that is all okay, lying is not.
Billy says:
“Oh, and I’m working on a paper on human behavior through multiple lines of communication, and since I am also interested in canine behavior I though I would join the two and mabey learn something useful.”
Burl says:
“After all the varied criticisms and positive recommendations for clarity I’ve offered here – to zero avail – I guess I’ll pass on posting that paper.”
Are you seriously posting as two different people??
Burl/Billy says: “But, as I noted, “suggestions for improvement or alternate understandings are met with complete dismissal.”
Really? So there haven’t been ENTIRE articles published in relation to your comments? Thoughts on Whitehead, Damasio and the Feeling Brain, not to mention hundreds of responses back and forth? You just don’t like the answers you were given. There’s a big difference.
to be fair burl, you are using tangential arguments in an attempt to invalidate/discredit the portions of ndt which you disagree w/ or find nonsensical.
for instance, the aspergers and ramthas, are used in your defense, to suggest that: kevin/ndt are too broad and indiscriminate in scope to be accurate; the origins of ndt are wed to, at least by some degree, a fringe spiritual philosophy bc of some shared vocab.
both are offered as evidence in support your larger position. they are not offered as observations or curious speculation, i.e., you are using them to make a point not related to any of the points kevin raises in any of the articles.
since neither of arguments listed above, are actual arguments against ndt, just digs at kevin/ndt, your comment “suggestions for improvement or alternate understandings are met with complete dismissal.” seems disingenuous.
The reason Burl needs to be “right” (though I don’t have any idea whatsoever what his own beliefs or even what he thinks is “wrong” with NDT, besides that he can’t understand it and/or articulate it(lack.of.critical.thinking.skills))
is that he has an aggressive dog.
Therefore if Kevin is right that Burl’s dog problems are not about the dog but about Burl and his (shall we say nicely) flawed way of thinking, then Burl is in a catch-22 situation. Not only that but his dogs seem to be his main connection to the world, so this is a very emotionally charged (electric) dilemma.
I think if you have a potentially dangerous problem with your dog, a creature you have by your own reporting structured your life around (and the dog isn’t very appreciative, is she?, plus no one here is appreciative of your helpful suggestions and critiques, your colleagues at work got on your nerves so you quit…) and a bona fide dog expert tells you that you are the problem, it would make sense to at least keep that possibility open to exploration.
But hey, your efforts to think your way out of the situation have been so effective, why change anything now?
So Burl’s connundrum is that if Kevin is right, Burl caused his dog’s problems and has burned the manual to fix them. Pretty scary place to be emotionally I’d say. There is another possibility to simply fighting to your own and quite possibly your dogs’ death to hold onto your “rightness”…self-reflection, humility, intellectual curiosity, patience, perseverence…
Sean
I could argue my case for how it came to me to bring up Ramtha and aspergers and why I finally did, but I’ll allow you make a solid point, here.
W/o going back thru all the comments since the beginning of the year, I’ll try to recall a few major points that I have tried to impress on Kevin et al, with little impact:
***William James and Tony Damasio to explain emotions and how the work in the body + computation of just how much real physical energy (calories) are available for emotional energy = 1 day running an electric trolling motor, not some high voltage or atom splitting event. (related to emotional battery, current, …)
***Whitehead to explain the ubiquity of consciousness for higher order creatures and provide a framework for the NDT ‘network consciousness’
***Use of Whitehead and then Hume to explain the subjectivist principle (we behave thus and so with thinking, dogs behave similarly, so dogs think too.) (relates to No Dogs Think)
***Time is real and has a structure. It has a specific durational present in which we experience our environment with sense perception combined thru reasoning (dogs to a smaller degree) with past recallable memories (physical memory) and act with deliberate intention with a notion of what may come next. (no instantaneous present)
***Pirsig’s explanation of the levels of evolution – depictable as the different sciences from QM thru Psych – to explain quantum effects are not influencing animal behavior in any significantly psycho-causal manner. (quantum dog)
I’ll stop here. Note, these are all pretty standard beliefs held by philosophers, behaviorists, neuroscientists, etc. Yet I do not think I changed one person’s mind on any one of these NDT counterpoints I raised.
kbehan wrote,”There’s nothing wrong with confrontation. I enjoy when someone has the temerity to directly confront the energy theory, too bad you can’t develop the arguments. But unless you understand the energy theory whatever “multiple lines of communication” you come up with is going to be what has already been said. When you’re done, please post your paper here and I will review it in light of an energy model.”
No Kevin I am not Burl.
I think when Burl wrote,”After all the varied criticisms and positive recommendations for clarity I’ve offered here – to zero avail – I guess I’ll pass on posting that paper”, he misunderstood who you were speaking to about the paper. Perhaps he failed to read any posts but yours, but I am most definitely not Burl.
I would appreciate future input on the paper, but in reality it’s value for strictly the energy model will be little. In my usage, “multiple lines of communication”, are specifically technological methods of communication. I’m studying human interaction across same device and mixed device activity (the psychology of it). Of course, from my limited reading the energy model might explain some of the input I have received previously through my other efforts whether I was perceived confrontationally, positively, or mostly ignored.
Again I will state that NO I AM NOT BURL!, but in light of the fact that I can not prove it I will refrain from further discussion on this board.
Thank you everyone for your very knowledgeable and impassioned input.
burl, i would not arrive at the same conclusion, that your points were dismissed. it appears a lot of thought went into each idea you brought, as evidenced by the fact each topic has a fully devoted article, with the exception of ramthas. whitehead being the most popular/commented on article on the site, actually.
i would agree however, that the current, standard held beliefs conflict w/ the ndt energy model. this seems obvious and inherent to the argument which ndt is making.
i think it is difficult to “change minds”, as you put it, because in order for a mind to change, there needs to be a “reason”. humans do think after all. so until you find that there is an error w/ the current model, something that can’t be squared away, why would you need to change your mind?
but what kevin has observed, is that the canine world is broken, at least our understanding of it. modern behaviorism often compounds problems in dogs, by applying the thought centric approach, which has consequences in application.
in particular, i think the invalidity of modern behaviorism is demonstrated in its own prescriptions for certain, problem behaviors. modern behaviorism resorts to drugs, chemically doping dogs, because some exceptional behaviors are not encompassed by their model. to me, this is flagrant misunderstanding of nature and the animal mind.
H:”no one here is appreciative of your helpful suggestions and critiques”
Syncopathy does not become you, Heather. What won’t you say or do for free dog training tips. Fact is, I tried to end the talks several times, yet sensed you guys wanted me to continue.
H:”your colleagues at work got on your nerves so you quit” How clairvoyant, can you name the other half dozen reasons for my decision to retire.
Heather, in assigning blame for our very recently developed concerns over our ferocious, man-eating, tasmanian beagle’s occasional flare-ups w/ her sisters, I can only remind you that what comes around, goes around. The day will surely come when, claiming you to be a hypocrite, one or more of your kids will turn on you with gritted teeth snarling “You knew damn well that thinking is unreal and harmful and that I am not conscious, so why the hell do you care that I keep getting Fs!”
Meanwhile, Peanut will be sitting for her treat thinking “…” (I really don’t know what)!
Perhaps it is unfair to suggest you are the same person, because you’re right, you can’t really prove that you’re not. My comment was a little more forceful in the matter, so apologies there.
But at the same time, it also seems unfair to engage others in arguments where one, you yourself are even unsure of your point, and two, to have such hidden intentions. I guess I just think the thread from both Burl and Billy has taken an odd turn.
@Burl: Yes, you made points. Is the conversation only valid if you are able to change someone’s mind? The only outcome that seems acceptable to you, is if NDT was completely revised, throws out decades of work and observations, and everyone on the site credits you for it.
Seb:”Is the conversation only valid if you are able to change someone’s mind? The only outcome that seems acceptable to you, is if NDT was completely revised, throws out decades of work and observations, and everyone on the site credits you for it. “
As long as everyone is busy reading my thoughts to determine my motives, my Ultimate Concern, as Tillich says, I want it to be perfectly clear to each and every one of you that, if I am right, I will be expecting a lifetime supply of dog treats for Sissy, Red, and Peanut!
Seriously – AND I JUST WAS – there were two papers being discussed at once back there, hence the confusion.
Burl: “Syncopathy does not become you, Heather”
That’s good to hear, my doctor ruled it out last year too.
Sorry, Heather, it’s spelled sycophanty (I had it right at one point, cuz I looked it up before I typed it in)
Sean:”I would agree however, that the current, standard held ***beliefs*** conflict w/ the ndt energy model. this seems obvious and inherent to the argument which ndt is making. i think it is difficult to “change minds”, as you put it, because in order for a mind to change, there needs to be a “reason”. humans do think after all. so until you find that there is an error w/ the current model, something that can’t be squared away, why would you need to change your mind?”
You guys cannot call accepted physical principles of reality merely ***beliefs*** and then dismiss them. Go back a few posts and look at my short list giving “the reasons” why NDT is in error.
This recurring irrational refusal to consider these reasons, and then say that no such arguments have been presented is exactly what finally made me think to google aspergers.
burl, “belief” was the word you chose.
“Note, these are all pretty standard beliefs held by philosophers, behaviorists, neuroscientists, etc.”
the statement i made wasn’t meant as a dig. call them notions, theories, proven tenants of modern science, fine by me. it’s not germane to my point.
i don’t get the refusal of consideration whcih you are proposing. there are numerous articles by kevin, which are dedicated to the points you have raised. different conclusions have been drawn, but you have to make a distinction between something being dismissed and something that someone understands and disagrees with, and then goes on to write about at length in numerous blog posts that state the reasons why.
I caught my error about ‘belief’ right after posting. Your ‘notions, theories, proven tenants of modern science’ is good for our purposes.
Scientific protocol requires one to go to the literature to find support for a new theory. When necessary, it is the proponent of the new theory who must find arguments to counter those accepted notions, theories, and tenants of science in the literature in conflict with the proposed new theory.
I went back and reread the main article for thoughts on Whitehead. I saw ANWs ideas peppered throughout, but honestly came to the same conclusion I first had – I cannot follow 2.3 of what Kevin says. FWIW
2/3 (I can’t type, either)