How do dogs disrespect their owner?
I have read this on many websites that give an overall, generalized view of the Akita. What exactly does "he will walk right over you" mean? I have not run into problems with getting Toki to do what I ask of him. I find a way to motivate him and so he does what is asked. I think this is a rule of thumb with all breeds of dogs, that all dogs must be motivated in some form or another. Toki walks ahead of me on the leash, but when i command him to go a different direction, we go a different direction. He walks on a loose leash unless there is a distraction, which I think is normal of any breed of dog. My point is, I don't really feel like Toki is "walking all over me", we have normal dog issues that are not breed-specific and our relationship is symbiotic and fluid, but if a dog was to disrespect their owner, how would they do it?
I don't really believe in dominance/alpha, so I kind of feel this "walk over over you" phrase comes from the belief of being the alpha leader.
"This breed must be treated with respect -- absolutely no teasing -- but you must insist on respect in return or he will walk right over you"
(and duh you shouldn't tease/piss off you dog, I don't think that is an akita thing, you shouldn't tease any dog, regardless of breed!!! Even though the akita may be less likely to put up with bullshit, it seems it goes on an individual basis versus a generalization of an entire breed of dog)
I don't really believe in dominance/alpha, so I kind of feel this "walk over over you" phrase comes from the belief of being the alpha leader.
"This breed must be treated with respect -- absolutely no teasing -- but you must insist on respect in return or he will walk right over you"
(and duh you shouldn't tease/piss off you dog, I don't think that is an akita thing, you shouldn't tease any dog, regardless of breed!!! Even though the akita may be less likely to put up with bullshit, it seems it goes on an individual basis versus a generalization of an entire breed of dog)
Comments
Usually when people say a dog walks all over you, they are referring to the dog's actions when no rules or expectations have been set for the dog so the dog does what dog does.
1. Dogs are not stupid; they are well aware that humans (and other household pets) are not dogs, do not communicate the way dogs do, and do not conform to the dog social dynamics. For this reason, applying any kind of pack hierarchy theory to non-dogs is fundamentally flawed. Multiple dogs living and working together form a pack. The dogs' owners are not part of the pack. The family cat is not part of the pack. An only dog does not have a pack. [This actually means that the next two points are irrelevant because they're based on this flawed premise but I'll address them anyway.]
2. Dogs do not fight for pack leadership; they spend a great deal of effort avoiding conflicts and expressing very sociable and cooperative behaviors. A pack is a working unit able to support one another and work together towards a single goal. Internal bickering is counter-productive, so dogs have developed very refined communication skills to smooth over problems. A group of dogs living together that are constantly fighting are not a pack; they're just dogs who happen to live together. Whats more, the leader of the pack does not give out orders to the other dogs.
3. Dogs have situational pecking orders; while one dog may be deferred to when it comes to meal time, the other dog may have first choice at where to bed down for the night. This goes back to the communication skills of a functioning pack. Not all dogs care about the same thing, either. For example, a puppy may be more interested in a toy than the senior, so it costs the older dog nothing to relinquish it to the youngster. The older dog, on the other hand, may be keen on lying close to the owner, while the puppy will pass out in some random location.
4. Dogs don't have complex motives; they do something because they want to do it and nothing more. A dog that walks ahead of its owner or bursts through the door is not declaring that its the alpha or trying to be defiant. It just wants to go, go, GO forwards and out! A dog may do something that the owner has trained it not to do or ignore a direct command from the owner, but insubordination and disrespect are not its motivating factor. The dog is simply more motivated by what it wants to do than by what the owner wants it to do.
There is no great danger in letting a dog walk in front of you or go out the door ahead of you or eat its meal before you. The dog isn't going to suddenly think it is the supreme ruler and can dictate all of the household rules. But the dog does know what it can get away with without rebuke, and every time it is rewarded by a behavior (such as sneaking food off the kitchen counter) that behavior is reinforced. In other words, don't give your dog the opportunity to self-reinforce behaviors you don't like, but don't sweat about behaviors that you don't mind. If you don't care if the dog walks ahead you, let him.
I am still not certain if dog's understand the concept of respect. I know some say they do, but I feel that is a human emotion pushed onto dogs by people. I think that "hierarchy", "alpha", and "dominance" are concepts that humans have because we need those things in our social systems, and one way we achieve these statuses is earning respect. But humans think dogs work just like us and that is where the misunderstanding comes in.
I agree with you, I think that dogs just want to do what they want, they don't do things to disrespect a human.
Deference and obeisance are all forms of respect that I believe that any animal is capable of. These words are strongly tied to action and easily demonstrable.
Appreciation and reverence are forms of respect which I find questionable. These words are strongly tied to thought and emotion, and can only be demonstrated though one of the above actions.
I'm eating a meal on the couch while watching tv. Dog sits nicely instead of jumping on me and up-ending all the food.
I agree, Jellyfart. It drives me crazy "they'll get "dominance" over you." They do make it sound like dogs are just waiting to seize control of the whole household! I also agree it's a human idea which people project on dogs. Primates DO have a social hierarchies and compete for dominance, but then human (primates!) project this idea on dogs.
in terms of deference, hmm, the examples here make sense to me. Another example is not trying to steal another dog's food when it is eating--most dogs do show deference to the dog who has possession of the food (or toy).
Ayk, your example really hits home with me, as my friend's border terrier was all over me last week as I was trying to eat dinner at her house. He literally would not stop trying to leap up and grab my food. He showed NO deference, because he's not been taught that he needs to, nor has he been taught impulse control. (I think many dogs have a natural tendency to defer to the animal that has control of a desired item, but this BT does not--he would steal food from her GSD too, if she didn't crate him. This is probably while my AA really does not like this dog).
eta: Akita World (FB) really drives me crazy with all the "dominant" Akita bs. It goes on and on. And you know what? As NK go, Akitas are pretty mellow. I don't even think they are a particularly difficult dog.
Antis:
1. So are we saying that dogs don't act or change their behaviors in reaction to their social environment or just don't "thoughtfully" choose to do so?
2. If dogs are partially adapted to human social behaviors, then could it be at all possible that they are able to "interface" with our hierarchical needs while retaining their own canine 2 canine structure?
3. how can we tell dogs don't have the capacity to respect in akitaworld's sense?
4. Is it possible that dogs have a higher thought process analogous to respect/dominance?
Pros:
1. How does one reliably interpret respectful behavior in dogs. Is it universal or based on understanding with a particular dog?
2. Is this a mutual quality? i.e. is it possible to disrespect a dog and be able to tell you have done so?
My bigger question is: What is the quality that holds a human-canine bonding together? is it translatable cross species or are both sides deceiving themselves by thinking the other is providing something for them- as a result, creating a bond without any thing ever really "brought to the table".
To me, dominance seems more like a dirty word than the actual issue. Shunning our natural tendencies and glorifying the dog's seems like an act of self-hate and a little sadistic in a way. Why can't we instead accept both sides as they are? If we choose to enter this partnership with a dog then we are, in fact, the dominant force in the relationship. We all exercise dominance to some degree, otherwise PETA would love us because we wouldn't believe in having pets at all. Event the most caring owner exercises considerable dominance over their dog by way of containment and behavior modification.
IMO, abuse of the "trust and reliability" understanding is the meat and potatoes. I would assume a bonded dog's preferential requirements are: Feed/water me, help me keep up my hygiene, play/exercise with me, don't hurt me. Either way, if we abide by these rules or we violate them, by way of freedom of choice, we are dominant. In short, I think humans will always be dominant and actively exercise their dominance over their pets. We must always be careful,however; not to abuse our freedom to choose.
I've never had a fruitful conversation with a dog so I'm taking a stab in the dark here. Dogs have a social structure, what it actually looks like and how it operates, only dogs truly know. We do know these rules though, dogs seek to preserve self (and offspring to an extent), "normal" Dogs usually seek to minimize conflict, Dogs are capable of learning, Dogs are capable of modifying (or at least attempting to) the way other entities interact with it. The act of self preservation, is what has the most potential to fuel most aggression (???). Using @Ayk 's example, the dog wants to preserve itself by eating, it decides the best way to do this is to violate The Understanding and take the food. This is NOT a pro-social behavior. The dog took the risk of conflict in order to fulfill whatever need it had. I think that canine social skills are developed enough to know the difference between positive social actions and those that may get it hurt/killed [heavy speculation]. So the dog demonstrated, in this instance, an act of dominant behavior within the context of The Understanding. Did it do it out of premeditation or to spite its owner? Not in the least. In fact, the dog may consider itself forgiven as it runs off, food in mouth. That does not change the fact of its dominant behavior. Considering the positive feedback dogs can receive from such behaviors, they may learn to seek ways to take what they want and take advantage of The Understanding if they perceive no threat to the greater social structure (you do nothing). Could it be possible that some breeds consider themselves more separate individuals while others are content to operate within the rules of the human hegemony? Could the individualistic ones be more prone to these "flashes" of dominance?
My opinion of dog-to-dog relationships is that they do have a form of dominance. To me it looks like "I want this, I take this." since they are not operating without respect to one another, competition emerges and the one best equipped to resolve the conflict is the dominant one. This one may go on to learn that by behaving like such is a good way to ensure its needs are met. I'm not saying it's always aggression either, diplomatic dogs have their own silent strength.
Perhaps it is possible that dogs sometimes confuse the "languages" and that's where we see dominance sometimes emerge??
For instance, in the little example I gave, I would not describe the food thief interaction as an example of dominance. I would regard it as poor manners, no observation of rules, or even no respect.
A behavior that I would have ascribe to a dominant dog (back when "dominant" wasn't so loaded a term) is a dog that comes up to the human eating the food, puts their paws on the person, and stiffening/growling for possession of the food.
Antis:
1. So are we saying that dogs don't act or change their behaviors in reaction to their social environment or just don't "thoughtfully" choose to do so?
>> I think the answer is "yes". I think they do/will change their behavior based on their social environment, but they don't so with some grand end-goal in mind. It's more "situational" and immediate and not premeditated.
Like, for example, a dog may see a dog who controls something they want and make a choice to challenge that dog for the item. In that situation, that item important enough for them to feel it's worth the conflict, however later on the same situation may arise and the same dog will not bother to challenge the same dog over it (no matter the outcome of the last encounter).
--
2. If dogs are partially adapted to human social behaviors, then could it be at all possible that they are able to "interface" with our hierarchical needs while retaining their own canine 2 canine structure?
>> I think so. I think dogs do this, but I think the description of the event is often twisted and manipulated to fit some meme or poor human understanding.
An example, when I walk outside with the dogs they don't jump all over me. When Jen goes outside they do jump all over her. This could be because..
a) I am less fun than Jen
b) I typically am not very pleasant when they act that way toward me (I punish them)
c) I spend more time with them (so I'm less exciting)
d) I am more threatening to them than Jen (a little bigger, louder)
e) I feed them and give them water, so they see me as an important provider and not simply a novelty
f) all of the above.
Let's say it's because of any one of those things, or even add an "g" to the list... g) I am Super King Alpha Man.
Whichever the answer is, the dogs are still behaving differently to suit my personal rules of interaction vs. Jen's personal rules. And so, they are "interfacing" socially with me in the same way they "interface" socially with each other ("respecting" each individual's personal social rules).
--
3. how can we tell dogs don't have the capacity to respect in akitaworld's sense?
>> I don't think we can tell. I think "respect" is subjective. What I feel is respectful behavior from a person or a dog may not be the same for Jen. Also, I think describing a dog's behavior as "respectful" is anthropomorphic, which is the real issue with using the term to describe dog behavior (IMHO).
--
4. Is it possible that dogs have a higher thought process analogous to respect/dominance?
>> Sure, it's possible. Why don't we ask them? ... Oh yea, we can't.
See, this is where a lot of the anthropomorphic taring techniques and behavioral models really bug me: we don't know what dogs are thinking.
It makes a lot more sense to me to base our understanding on dog in science. We have/know the science behind how they learn (learning theory) - so we should base our training and understanding on that and not some silly unproven concept. All that stuff is just simply guesswork.
--
Pros:
1. How does one reliably interpret respectful behavior in dogs. Is it universal or based on understanding with a particular dog?
>> Is "respectful behavior" universal in us humans?
--
2. Is this a mutual quality? i.e. is it possible to disrespect a dog and be able to tell you have done so?
>> You lost me here. sorry. :oT
--
My bigger question is: What is the quality that holds a human-canine bonding together? is it translatable cross species or are both sides deceiving themselves by thinking the other is providing something for them- as a result, creating a bond without any thing ever really "brought to the table".
>> I provide for my dogs. I don't think all of them would make it on their own. Half the time I feel like I am constantly saving their lives. In return, I get something out of it...
I think that "something" we get out of the dog-human relationship is different for every person.
Certainly I have had dogs who took WAY more from me than they gave me, and then I I've had dogs who have given more to me than they have taken from me (Kaia).
----
*8D
@shibamistress - Maybe supreme ruler of the universe is Brad's ulterior motive for building a kai army, lol
@brada1878 I have a question about:
> I provide for my dogs. I don't think all of them would make it on their own. Half the time I feel like I am constantly saving their lives. In return, I get something out of it...>
So do you think that in the long run, anyone who "provides" for a dog could develop as strong of a bond as an original owner? If not, then what would account for the strength of an original bond? I'm thinking of the examples of the couple of rescue dogs we've owned vs. dogs we've owned since puppy-hood? Rescue dogs just never seemed quite all "ours" and puppies of course loyal beyond measure...??? Why do you think there is that difference if we provide the same for them whether they are rescue or bonded at the puppy stage? I've always wondered about that!
The definition of "respect" may have different meaning for different people and quite often has a lopsided balance when it refers to dog training. Personally, if you have a good relationship i.e. mental "togetherness" with a canine, then really there isn't a need to think there would be a lack of respect. In a smooth relationship respect happens but is not plastered on as a badge of honor. It is about mutual harmony more than anything. A beautiful team is pace by pace together without too much pressure, it just clicks... sometimes exhibited or seen in foot work, and physical flow which looks effortless. It's mutual. I think it is appropriate to replace the term "respect" with the word "connect" since we most often fail to connect with canines on the level they need to, before lack of so called "disrespect" is of issue. Poor communication, lack of acknowledgement for the dogs needs, and handling issues are really at the heart of many behavior problems. Failure to see what the dog sees can lead to all sorts of problems.
Snf
1. So are we saying that dogs don't act or change their behaviors in reaction to their social environment or just don't "thoughtfully" choose to do so?
---I think it depends on the dog and what the circumstance is. Sometimes there isn't a connection or a value in what they are doing that makes it desirable enough or motivating enough to make a specific change. Sometimes its mere miscommunication on the part of the human dog interaction or just lack of preference by the dog to do so, or even lack of maturity.
2. If dogs are partially adapted to human social behaviors, then could it be at all possible that they are able to "interface" with our hierarchical needs while retaining their own canine 2 canine structure?
---Not sure about your meaning of "interface". Again dog social behavior generally varies and in degree. I think to some extent they do have two different shoes they wear depending on their audience or group. You see the behavior difference in deference mentioned above. Like anything there usually is give and take. Some take more than they give and vise versa, just depends on the dynamic.
Each human relationship with each animal is different and should have room for flex. What I seek in my dog is not necessarily what you will find enjoyable or meets with the leadership guideline as slated by so many. For example I let my dog jump on me to greet me. That is considered deplorable and horrible by many described as dominance. However, I know he enjoys it, so we use that as a basis of reward, communication, and interaction in his case. (BTW, possibly anthropomorphic, I would let my child run up and hug me when I get home too. In the Victorian ideal you would never hug your child). Times and tactics do change, often for the better, sometimes you simple go with what works given the propensity of the animal.
3. how can we tell dogs don't have the capacity to respect in akitaworld's sense?
Well it really depends on an individual owners definition of "respect" and expectation for their dog in relation to their view.
4. Is it possible that dogs have a higher thought process analogous to respect/dominance?
--Hard to say for sure, a good question.
Pros:
1. How does one reliably interpret respectful behavior in dogs. Is it universal or based on understanding with a particular dog?
---I think it is case by case understanding with each individual. Refers back to 3 above
2. Is this a mutual quality? Is it possible to disrespect a dog and be able to tell you have done so?
---2A) Sometimes it is mutual and sometimes not. (Is it mutual in all cases with any mammal at all times? I would hazard a guess it is not.)
2B) Depends on definition of "respect". ...Most mammals give signals if they feel disrespected or somewhat offended. An example harsh corrections and forced social encounters... If your dog becomes fearful or reacts badly as it feels forced into a situation of your choosing that makes it uncomfortable or aggrieved, to me that shows disrespect by the human. If you look carefully you surely will see the signs, panting, eye rolling, lip smacking etc etc....some humans choose not to see though. Sometimes we have few options in the case of vet visits, but we can make the situation a little less horrible with some respectful handling whenever possible and providing relief or assurance that you are there to help them get out of a tough spot. Another example is a dog correcting an owner ....you will see this in agility when the handler messes up the pace or goes off course and the dog knows it and attempts to notify the handler out of frustration.
My bigger question is: What is the quality that holds a human-canine bonding together? is it translatable cross species or are both sides deceiving themselves by thinking the other is providing something for them- as a result, creating a bond without any thing ever really "brought to the table".
--- A) Depends on the dog/human relationship, activities, and also the innate personalities of the individuals. I think it can be translatable between human and canine, just as in any relationship there is a give and take that has a back and forth to it. If there isn't some mutuality to it, it would not be a relationship. Have you ever seen a dog turn its back on someone out of disinterest? It does happen and humans often do not see it for what it is. A clear signal that there needs to be intervention. Some dogs and humans are mismatched. Sometimes I do feel that dogs choose to ignore the inconsistencies of their owners and go along for the ride, deceptions aside.
Honestly, I think dogs are sort of existentialists, in that they don't really have a set value system of what is "good" and what is "bad". I think it is more like successful and unsuccessful and valuable and not-valuable. Or even favorable and unfavorable....but not good and bad, because that would imply they have premeditated thoughts. Example: I don't think dogs say "I'm going to shit in Home Depot because it is good"...or, "I am going to shit in home depot despite it being bad". (or maybe toki shat in home depot cause of a miscommunication on my part, haha). They dont do things cause it is a good thing to do, they do them because there is a favorable outcome. I think they just do it because it makes them happy, it is what they want to do and it doesn't warrant an unfavorable outcome. To me, morality might be too complex for a dog to understand, and if they have morals, it is pretty simple. Maybe we are anthropormorphisizing dogs by giving them too complex of emotions. And also, in my opinion, I believe good and bad's existence depends on mans existence; without man, good and bad do not exist because it doesn't exist in the universe. That is how I come to this hypothesis.
And that isn't to upset anyone, cause I could be very wrong after all. That is why I bring it up because I am a big fan of challenging my own beliefs and playing devils advocate. I'd love to hear thoughts..... Are dogs moral beings who believe in good and bad?
@brada1878 - I must seem like a freaking titan to my dogs then
@jellyfart - I don't think we're anthropomorphizing them but rather trying to figure out how to understand them on THEIR terms based on limited information.
Jelly-Aren't there different stages of moral development? For example, social interaction requires a minimum level of morality in order to be sustainable. Say hunting and killing small animals was pleasurable to a dog- why then does it not do this with every or most small animals it encounters (including smaller dogs)? Is this not some type of canine "morality" to value group civility over individual needs? So, there could be a "code" they follow, meaning in doggyworld peeing and humping are generally good things simply because everyone likes it- weakness and biting are taboos because they result in bad things. etc... I think Dogs exist in a quasi-moral state. I really doubt they are simple automata bound by completely static rules, but I also do not think they are capable of abstraction and believing in non-concrete "causes" like good and bad that allow them to adapt their behavior to the degree we can.
Here is my favorite excerpt:
"Politeness and rudeness fall in the lowly sphere of mere social conventions and morality is in the higher sphere of good and evil. I agree but think the two spheres overlap. [...] This then is the connection between manners and morals: we are taught manners so that we might become moral or virtuous. [...] Manners are not morals; they are 'pretend' morals. But, if Comte-Sponville is right, there is a strong connection between the two. In his words, 'We must practice at being good before we can become good.'"
An easy way to look at it is this: an amoral or immoral person can still be polite and show respect and a moral person can still be rude and disrespectful. One can also respect something they do not believe in; for example, the military of Nazi Germany can be respected for its prowess while not agreeing with its agenda.
Dogs can have manners but not morals, in my opinion. They don't know the difference between good and bad, but they do know about manners. They have a pretty good innate understanding of canine etiquette, but often need to be taught the finer points of human social conventions (eg. training). Morality goes back to complex motives, which I also do not think dogs have.
I like @jellyfart 's "existentialists" thoughts.
@Yandharr - If you came to our place I think most of our dogs would follow you home. They's be like "oh my, he has arrived. He makes this other 'alpha guy' look like an ant!" lol
@CarabooA - My short answer to your question is: IMHO there is a certain amount of imprinting that happens while a puppy is younger than 6 months. That imprinting is what you are calling a "bond".
However, it's certainly different with each dog. Some will always remember their first owners, others will not.
We placed Fuji (female Akita Inu) at around a year old. When I went back to visit Fuji a few months ago she mos def remembered me. She was super happy to see me, but when Dorothy went to bed and left Paul and I to chat, Fuji left me and went to bed with Dorothy. So, while she remembered me, and was happy to see me (which perhaps shows a "bond"), she knew where she belonged and chose to follow her primary provider to bed. - Now, I have to admit, this could simply be the power of a routine (Fuji going to bed every night with Dorothy) showing over any real "deep" meaning - dogs really love to stick to their routines.
Another example of the exact opposite is Luytiy. Luytiy came here from Stacey at 1.5 years old. When he was around 3 years old Stacey came to visit. Luytiy had no idea who Stacey was.
----
To be fair, all three of these dogs had a common puppyhood that lacked socialization and they lived outdoors.