This is Part Two of why you shouldn't believe everything you hear on TV about dogs. Part One was: It's not chocolate v. vanilla! Why some dog training methods deserve public criticism.
Dominance trainers often accuse +R trainers of treating dogs like babies, kids, humans; of, in effect, anthropomorphizing.
The irony is that it is they who are guilty of anthropomorphizing, of assigning dogs motivations and emotions which are human, and which reflect more the mindset of the human end of the leash than the dog's. Dogs don't sit around scheming for domination of the home. They don't plot coups. They're not after abstract ideals such as supremacy over the human.
I'm pondering electoral reform. The antiquated First Past the Post system results in undemocratic federal represenation. My analysis leads me to one of the variants of the so called
'single transferable vote'......
Next, I'll turn my attention to the constitutional relationship between dogs and cats,
and the cats' demands for recognition of their unique culture, heritage and language.....
And they definitely don't use machiavellian methods in their pursuit of what they actually want, which is simple things like food, affection, toys, to chase things, to explore, to smell, to be warm, to be comfortable.
A dog's mind is actually quite simple: they see it, they want it, they try to get it. That's it.
I want a tummy rub!
Rudeness is not dominance. Jumping up is not dominance. Barking is not dominance. They're behaviours, not psychological states.
And those who try to explain the reason for the behaviours in complicated human psychology concepts of dominance, are guilty not only of anthropomorphism, but of a complete ignorance of what actually does motivate dogs.
