:thumbup:

Okay, I haven't watched the video yet, but I want to say something else about the supposed magic of Cesar's methods. Cesar does know how to restrain a dog and prevent a full-blown attack. So if a dog is struggling, Cesar is going to win that fight. I concede that it takes experience to know how to hold a dog in a way he can't get at you, but I don't think it's a special talent.

So let's consider the options a dog has when Cesar acts aggressively or provocatively towards a dog:
- the dog can give up/show submissive, calming signs, such as lying down.
- the dog can whine/cry in distress.
- the dog can get aggressive back, to no avail.
- the dog can totally flip out and struggle with everything it has to get away, to no avail.
- the dog can pretend to submit, and then after Cesar has left, it can start legal action against him.

Okay, so I made up the last point. I added it to demonstrate that while Cesar's dogs have done all of these things, eventually the dog will give up, if for no other reason than he is exhausted. Dogs lack capacity for deceit or foresight. What you see is what you get. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand why it's so impressive that the dogs submit, because that is the only choice they have. If the dog immediately submits, it's credited to Cesar's amazing dog handling skills. If the dog cries, it is called manipulative, eventually it gives up, and it's credited to Cesar's amazing dog handling skills. If the dog gets aggressive, people take that as proof the dog is dangerous, eventually it gives up, and it's credited to Cesar's amazing dog handling skills... etc.

:thumbup:I agree

I can tell you in psychology, there are three major schools of thought, Behaviorism, Freudian or what is known as Psychoanalysis, and Humanistic psychology. The strict Freudians hate the Behaviorists and the Humanists, as does the strict Behaviorist, hate the other branches. A therapist, who only endorses one branch and shuns the others, is making a huge mistake; behavior modification works well, in certain circumstances, but talk therapy is needed in others. Dog training has long been dominated by only Behaviorism, because there was no way to psychoanalyze or develop a dogs " self-actualization." So Cesar comes along, and starts looking into the dog's psyche, and what, he believes, a dogs truly needs to be "self actualized", exercise, discipline, and affection, and this is a whole new way of thinking, when we start to look at the dog's needs. He is incorporating the two other branches of psychology, into his methods, and I can understand why this would infuriate behaviorists. While behaviorism was my specialty, I never discounted the other branches as being worthless, but I can tell you that most behaviorists do, even with human psychology, and when you are talking about animal psychology, I doubt if you will find any strict behaviorist who would endorse Cesar because Cesar doesn't just rely on just behaviorism.

You know I love you... but one thing I have noticed about this thread is that many links supporting contentions against Cesar have been posted, and they've been completely brushed off as biased, generally with no attention paid to the credentials - they're just assumed to be irrelevant. Some people have said that there are just as many experts supporting Cesar. I don't believe that to be the case, because his methods ARE old. Where are the experts in favor of Cesar? I don't see any links to those here. If there are experienced people heading veterinary medical boards and national rescues who support Cesar's methods, let's hear from them.

I don't agree with this. First, there have been huge breakthroughs in the use of medications to treat anxiety disorders and the like in animals. It's been recognized that animals can have OCD, and there is tons of observations and discussion at zoos about how to keep animals happy and engaged, because zoo animals often act in neurotic ways. Second, Victoria just had a veterinarian on her show to analyze one dog's extreme separation anxiety with another dog, and the vet talked about how dogs can experience grief and PTSD. Victoria talked about the evil chi described earlier as having experienced rejection and loss. Third, I see so many people saying about Cesar "dogs just need to know what you like and don't like." How is this psychology? Fourth, there is tons and tons and tons of research into animal emotions. Saying there isn't, or that all trainers are straight behaviorists, isn't true.

Finally, human psychology is a whole other ball of wax, greatly complicated by the fact that we are studying our own species, and a whole host of other factors.

Actually, I think many of us believe Cesar's methods, to be very new and innovative. I see Victoria's methods, as extremely old.

What is Cesar doing that's new? Discovering that animals need exercise? His training methods were used seventy years ago.

How can Victoria's methods be considered old when Karen Pryor was breaking ground with the clicker in the seventies? :confused:

These "expert" individuals attempting to discredit Cesar may have a tremendous amount of education, but I don't see the ability to clearly evaluate visuals that are presented to them. Case in fact -- if the video with the Husky is evidence of Cesar kicking a dog, then I have absolutely NO respect what so ever for any of their opinions and I don't need to delve any further.

I have trained horses and dogs (my personal dogs and horses that I have sold - so I guess that makes me a professional horse trainer) for over 20 years. I have worked with, and studied a plethora of trainers and training methods and have gleaned from each techniques that work for me. I have three Golden Rules when training that can never ever be broken. Any training technique that I can use that will help me reach a goal and allow me to follow the rules below I will try.

1) I cannot get hurt
2) The animal I am training cannot get hurt
3) The animal I am training must be more relaxed at the end of a training session than it was at the beginning (notice I said relaxed - not tired)

One last point here -- I sincerely appreciate training methods that teach the individual to think. Mercury, I wish you could come to the farm for one of our training sessions with the horses. I think you would truly be amazed and pleased with what you saw.

I saw the show in which you are speaking, but I'm against using medications to treat, until other methods have failed, and there was no training attempted, medication was the first choice. Also she didn't give the name of the medication, but said it would take several weeks to have an effect, and this means it was not a typical tranquilizer, but an antidepressant, and again, I don't think these should be given lightly, except as a last resort. The psychology she used was not in her training methods, but just to explain to the client how the dog felt. I think we've known for a long time animals have feeling of loss. Her training methods are strict behaviorism with food as the reward, and enticer, not that I'm against this, it's an easy way of training certain things.

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, "Third, I see so many people saying about Cesar "dogs just need to know what you like and don't like." How is this psychology?" I have never made that statement, and I don't understand what it's in reference to, furthermore, I don't know what you mean by, "How is this psychology?".

You say, " Human psychology is a whole other ball of wax." When you study psychology, you aren't really studying humans; you are studying behavior in general. Freudian and Humanist psychology, of course, are thought to have applied only to humans, but I really like the idea, that some of these things can possibly be applied to animals. The experiments that produced the laws of behavior were made on animals, many different species, and humans as well. So, Behaviorism applies to all organisms. Comparative psychology studies the difference between species, but these differences are not in the rules of behavior, but what works as a reinforcer or cue. I think Cesar's newness is that he found a new reinforcer for dogs; food and praise that has long been thought as the only reinforcers for dogs, and Cesar believes that if you can make a dog be in this certain state of mind, that this would be the reinforcer. So this is really new, to me anyway.

I would love to see you train horses! :) I'm sure I would learn tons. Maybe I will be able to take you up on that sometime.

I guess my question for those of us who don't have farms, is where is the science behind Cesar's methods? What papers have been written, documenting the principles of Cesar's methods? What journals are they in? Who is trying to apply Cesar's techniques to other species? What conferences exist? Who is trying to extend Cesar's method further? Are people trying to precisely define the term "energy"?

Even if science gets it wrong the first couple dozen times, you have to keep trying and studying to progress. Otherwise, you just stay in the circus, beating elephants with sticks, because that's what your trainer taught you, and that's the way it's always been done.

Thing is that dog should not have been in that close anyway.
To train a dog you need it to be not under stress so that it can learn.
Out of the " zone" the dog been calm and paying attention to the handler and therefor no " BUMP" be needed, nor a choke.

When under stress how is your memory?
What do you remeber say after a car accident?
Usually not much niether does the dog.

JL

That's just it, you keep saying his methods are really old, but I've never heard of the state of mind thing before Cesar. No, I don't think there would be any research comparing his methods to other methods. Some of this will just be tested as it was in the old days, if something works people use it, and if it doesn't, they don't.

I saw the show in which you are speaking, but I'm against using medications to treat, until other methods have failed, and there was no training attempted, medication was the first choice. Also she didn't give the name of the medication, but said it would take several weeks to have an effect, and this means it was not a typical tranquilizer, but an antidepressant, and again, I don't think these should be given lightly, except as a last resort.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. How do you feel about antidepressants in humans? I happen to find it very interesting that many mood medications work just as well on animals as they do on humans. Whether it's good or bad it is a NEW area, not an old one.

The psychology she used was not in her training methods, but just to explain to the client how the dog felt. I think we've known for a long time animals have feeling of loss. Her training methods are strict behaviorism with food as the reward, and enticer, not that I'm against this, it's an easy way of training certain things.

People keep saying this, and I don't get it. Victoria uses sound aversion, body blocking, modeling, negative reinforcement, desensitization, all KINDS of things. She is not just always handing out treats. I would say her methods are behaviorism based, but that doesn't mean they are OLD - they are new applications based on earlier research. I would not call Victoria a "dog psychologist", but saying that a dog feels rejected by its owner is NOT behaviorism.

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, "Third, I see so many people saying about Cesar "dogs just need to know what you like and don't like." How is this psychology?" I have never made that statement, and I don't understand what it's in reference to, furthermore, I don't know what you mean by, "How is this psychology?".

Look through this thread and the Cesar thread, and you will see people saying these things. It is simplifying dogs into "Good/Bad" machines, not saying anything about their thoughts, reasoning abilities, instincts, emotions, or anything else.

You say, " Human psychology is a whole other ball of wax." When you study psychology, you aren't really studying humans; you are studying behavior in general. Freudian and Humanist psychology, of course, are thought to have applied only to humans, but I really like the idea, that some of these things can possibly be applied to animals. The experiments that produced the laws of behavior were made on animals, many different species, and humans as well. So, Behaviorism applies to all organisms. Comparative psychology studies the difference between species, but these differences are not in the rules of behavior, but what works as a reinforcer or cue. I think Cesar's newness is that he found a new reinforcer for dogs; food and praise that has long been thought as the only reinforcers for dogs, and Cesar believes that if you can make a dog be in this certain state of mind, that this would be the reinforcer. So this is really new, to me anyway.

You brought up different schools of psychology to compare schools of thought on training. I think this is a false analogy, because frankly, there is a much greater scientific basis in animal training, partly because it's easier to analyze a species that's not your own, and partly because we can do many experiments on observations with animals we can't do with humans. I would say the greatest advancements we've made in human learning recently have come from the animal world.

I'm not sure why Victoria's use of reinforcement is "old" and Cesar's is "new". Looking at Cesar's shows, I see a lot of submissive dogs, but I think that has nothing to do one way or the other with whether they are calm.

Cesar may use new words, but that doesn't make it a new technique, any more than if I taught students using repetition and called it, "brain wave sharpener."

I don't understand, if Cesar's methods are new, why would scientists not be thrilled to use his findings to move forward? Why doesn't he have researchers following him around, the way Pryor did? You can say, oh, science is biased, but surely SOME would be interested.