Comments

Melinda Hertel wrote on 01/29/10 6:39 PM

I think that a lot of people don't think for themselves--they are followers. I was raised with the methods you talk about in your blog about evolving into a dog person. I was taught by parents and other adults to use choke collars, rolled up newspapers, etc. (My favorite is shoving the dog's nose in it's excrement to teach it not to poop or pee in the house.) But, I started thinking independently and started searching for better ways. I stopped seeing my dogs as mere "animals" and started seeing them as individuals with feelings and personalities. Unfortunately, it is my experience that most people never think outside the box. How else would we get the phrase "He's stuck in his ways". How else would so many dogs end up in shelters and rescues? (Is "how else" even proper grammar?)

My other thought is that Cesar has the power of TV on his side. If it's on TV it must be true, right? And if I don't think for myself, and don't know any different, and it's on TV then it is undoubtedly true! It's just media hype that sucks people in.

Marilyn Wolf wrote on 01/30/10 8:46 AM

I attended the North American Veterinary Conference a couple weeks ago. Two veterinary behaviorists were using Millan's picture as what not to do. That's a much stronger statement than the one on the website.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn,

I agree that veterinary behaviorists speaking at the North American Veterinary Conference carry a lot more weight and credentials than I do. But the dog owners who watch Cesar's show & follow his methods probably aren't any more likely to hear those behaviorists than visit this website.

Cesar has television and a huge multimillion dollar marketing machine behind him. We need to reach out in as many ways as we can. If just one person reading this article is encouraged to at least investigate training based on positive reinforcement, then I will be happy.

Kevin

Karen Wild (@WildPaw) wrote on 02/01/10 8:53 AM

Absolutely brilliant post. Clear and fair. Congratulations ... let's spread the word. Karen x

Bonnie Hess wrote on 02/01/10 11:36 AM

Excellent article! Thank you for writing this and putting into words what I have been thinking! Yes, the Milgram experiment showed us the power of authority, even under the most divisive and atrocious circumstances. (some of the stooges were screaming in pain and the subject would still increase the shock if told to).
So, everyone, please follow your hearts and your good intuition about right and wrong, kindness and cruelty, the author reminds us all to do!

lili wrote on 02/08/10 3:32 PM

I just found this blog and am going to add to my favorites!

Re: "Why do some people follow the advice given by Cesar Milan on The Dog Whisperer even though they may have reservations about the methods he uses?"

I used to watch the Dog Whisperer show religiously and regarded CM as a god. The show made me feel that I too (and anybody else) could become an expert. It wasn't until I started my dog on an training program that was very heavily based on Dominance theory and prong-collar punishment, and experienced firsthand the stressful effects of these methods, did I start wondering if there were alternative methods. Until then, I had no idea that other methods and dog training theories existed.

My guess is that most people in the world have no idea that there is a world beyond the Dog Whisperer. Also, the show is full of mantras that are repeated over and over- which make them easy to "pick up". Suddenly everyone thinks they are an expert ... it's exhausting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lili,

Glad you found our site, and I am very glad you've discovered the positive training world beyond Cesar.

Thank you for your comments,

Kevin

Anne Rogers wrote on 02/10/10 3:24 PM

Four paws up!! - this is an excellent, clear and certainly realistic explanation. Def passing this one on.

RJ Peters wrote on 02/10/10 3:49 PM

I, too, was "sucked in" by Cesar when his show first came out. I was new in animal rescue at the time and needed some info quickly on how to handle so many different dogs, from so many different circumstances. I religiously watched his show, and even taped them to watch again.

Here's what I've gotten out of this: I used what worked, within the confines of my conscience that dictates kindness. In other words, I'd have to say, he isn't all bad. I was able to modify dogs' behaviors that made them possible to be adopted. I never used a prong collar or yanked them around. And I'm not a dog person! I'm a cat person.

I've since researched other experts and learned from each of them, too. And guess what? I don't agree with all of them, either!

My philosophy is to extract what's good out of any system or someone's teachings and create your own methods. I even spent an entire month in a Scientology facility to see what all the fuss was about, and brought home with me some very valid ideas that have helped me in dealing with other people. It didn't make me a "scientologist."

The "secret," I guess, is that you don't have to adopt or accept the whole enchilada. You can take bites of this and bites of that and make your own plate from the smorgasbord.

Good post, Kevin. You obviously have done your homework. I don't see why someone has to be certified, accredited, published, lionized, sainted and anointed before the public is allowed to accept their statements. Truth is truth. I don't care who read it, learned it, or where it came from. Truth is truth. A piece of paper does not guarantee truth will be shared. I've even heard lies from the anointed ones!

calmassertive wrote on 02/15/10 7:19 PM

The practioners of what Cesar teaches are the exact Opposite of the subjects in the Milgram experiment. They make their dogs Happier by their actions, not more miserable, and they can see the results Directly, not relying on actors behind curtains to create indirect deliberate misimpressions. They make their dogs Healthier, both physically and mentally, by how they interact with their dog each day, not Less so, as the author of this bizarre article would claim. The owners who teach their dogs to behave in a relaxed, peaceful state of mind by using Cesar's lesson respectful leadership are their dogs' best friends, making both their and their dogs' lives better as a result of their practice.

Milgram showed how Authority can be used to invoke Cruelty. Cesar shows how people can become their Own authorities, and how they can use it to invoke Joy.

There is a twisted irony in this author's pseudo-intellectual attempt to prop up a bogus assertion by use of the old debate technique of quoting 'authoritative' backing for an otherwise-absurd claim. Falling back on meritless articles by supposed 'authorities' such as the AVSAB article is Exactly what the subjects of the Milgram experiment did when relying on the experimenter to think on their behalf -- accepting the word of the Authority figure rather than what any outside observer would call common sense. The Author of this article Himself defers to outside authority. The millions of students of what Cesar teaches do the exact Opposite. Unlike the subjects of Milgram's experiment, Cesar's admirers see the results for Themselves, know the Good they are doing First Hand. And they know First Hand what drivel this author's article is, the essential argument for which is that some supposed
Authority said it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
calmassertive,

I think you've missed the point entirely. I don't deny that there are many people out there who are happy with Cesar and his methods; and although I would dispute whether or not the dogs are happier, it's conjecture argued either way. My question deals with people that follow his methods even though they may have reservations about them.

Many of the methods that I've seen Cesar use (and those he promotes in his books) are by definition of science and common sense-- punitive. If a person is using those methods, but still has reservations or doubts about them, how does that not fit into what I am asking here?

As for people becoming their own authorities, how can anyone become and authority on anything without first examining all sides of an issue?

As for the assertion that I am merely regurgitating what other experts have said; my agreement with them comes from my own research, personal experience, and common sense. It's just that you and I have a difference of opinion about what common sense is.

Thank you for your comment.

Kevin

calmassertive wrote on 02/16/10 11:19 AM

The term 'punitive' has emotional connotations, depending on context, or simple objective connotations, again depending on context. Punishment in the operant-conditioning sense is simply the opposite end of the reward-vs-punishment spectrum. Punishment does not equate to Cruelty. In the context at hand it simply means an aversive stimulus, something a subject treats as a Dis-incentive rather than an In-centive.

Cesar never is Cruel to animals. He does use all 4 quadrants of the operant-conditioning model, as do all good behaviorists. Adding a reward (positive reinforcement) is a completely ineffective way to Discourage a behavior, which is generally what Cesar is called in to accomplish. A well-timed distracting touch (positive punishment) is Very effective at discouraging, even Eliminating, certain unwanted behaviors, but would be entirely Inappropriate when teaching a dog to Fetch. This is why Cesar doesn't call himself a Trainer, since he is used to Discourage unwanted behaviors, not Encourage desired behaviors. Any ten-year-old can teach a dog to sit.

If your point is that people who reluctantly follow authority are like the Milgram subjects, then Duh, of course that's true, that was the whole point of the experiment -- they follow authority Reluctantly but they follow it nonetheless. The millions of adherents to the pack-leadership approach that dogs use amongst themselves, and which Cesar has brilliantly observed and articulated for humans to emulate, may in fact try these techniques initially based on a conditional deference to Cesar's status as an authority, but they quickly see for themselves the effectiveness of the approach and thus switch from taking His word for it to trusting Their Own Eyes. Seeing the results they desire first hand removes the whole external-authority factor from the owner/dog relationship, and they can thereafter speak of the change from a position of Personal authority. The expression 'Seeing Is Believing' would better be phrased as 'Seeing Replaces Believing'.

I will grant you that if someone applies positive punishment (in the operant-conditioning sense, not the colloquial cruelty sense) and it does Not discourage the unwanted behavior and they Continue it Anyway, THEN you have a point. But, and it is a Big But, the Exact Same can be said for someone who applies positive Reinforcement to no avail and who continues That practice regardless. People who are told to be all cookies and kisses to their dogs and who continue to do so even in the face of their dog trying to bite the face off of passing toddlers, people who follow this politically-correct bogus advice to coddle their dog even when it misbehaves, these people too, then, are like the Milgram subjects. These people certainly recognize the ineffectiveness of Their approach, lamenting to others that they can't understand why Fluffy is so aggressive towards children, bicycles or whatever, but They continue to feed Fluffy treats and pet Fluffy every time nonetheless, because some bozo Authority, like the clueless author of the AVSAB article, said to do it. I would, and Cesar does, claim that more dogs are harmed psychologically by the owner's Failure to apply discipline in these cases, by their Failure to throw off the mental shackles of rewards-only Authority and their Failure to don the cap of 4-quadrant 'scientific' conditioning practices. In this sense Cesar is the ultimate anti-Milgram.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

calmassertive,

I would like to address some of your points here.

Statement: Punishment does not equate to Cruelty. In the context at hand it simply means an aversive stimulus, something a subject treats as a Dis-incentive rather than an In-centive.

My Response: In some cases punishment does equal cruelty. It also depends on the point of view of the person viewing and most assuredly on the dog who is being punished. Positive punishment can be used to stop an unwanted behavior that's true, but in order for it to be effective the following criteria must be met.

1. The punishment must be an IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the behavior. The timing of the correction must be exact.

2. The punishment must be severe enough to cause the immediate cessation of the behavior. A punishment that is not severe enough will become reinforcement over time. A punishment that is too severe can cause the dog to react in a fearful or aggressive manner.

3. The punishment MUST occur every single time the behavior is displayed. If the dog gets away with it once, the behavior has then become randomly reinforced and will probably strengthen.

How many dog owners do you surmise have the kind of timing, knowledge, and management skills in order to meet these criteria?

Add to this the fact that punishment itself can become reinforcing to the punisher and I think you have a good case for using many of the other tools at your disposal such as counter conditioning desensitization and negative punishment just to name a few.
Statement: Cesar never is Cruel to animals. He does use all 4 quadrants of the operant-conditioning model, as do all good behaviorists. Adding a reward (positive reinforcement) is a completely ineffective way to Discourage a behavior, which is generally what Cesar is called in to accomplish.

My response: Again cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. I have witnessed Cesar choke, drag, knee, and use flooding techniques on dogs. Besides the fact that I and many others totally disagree with his "dominance theory", I find these techniques questionable at best and cruel at worst. I agree that positive reinforcement may not be the tool of choice in all cases, but other things I’ve mentioned including counter conditioning, negative punishment, desensitization etc. are more effective. Also, there are actually five "quadrants" in operant conditioning with extinction being the fifth. For annoying behaviors that don't pose hazards to dog or human, simply ignoring them so they are no longer reinforced should eventually lead to their extinction.

Your last two paragraphs clearly show that you subscribe to the "Dominance & Pack Theory" that Cesar promotes. There are people who have just as much (and more) hands on experience with dogs as Cesar does and who have decades of scientific study and knowledge under their belt. Yet you seem to think that their opinions are meritless. Why? What makes Cesar more knowledgeable than these people?

The reason I wrote this article in the first place was because there were many trainers out there who like me, do not agree with Cesar's methods or theories. I postulated that lack of information about dog friendly methods, and acceptance of his "authority" because of the reason I listed in the article, might help explain his popularity.

The bottom line is this. I KNOW that many of the dogs that Cesar "rehabilitates" on his show can be rehabilitated more effectively and with less chance of harm to either the human or dog using methods that do not incorporate positive punishment. And there are mountains of evidence from both “authority figures”, and dog lovers alike to back this up.

Kevin

Listener wrote on 02/17/10 7:05 PM

I"ll share a few thoughts -

Cesar does not recommend the use of a prong collar. On his show he has explained that you better know how to use it correctly or you can hurt your dog physically and mentally. What he does say is that he uses whatever the owner choose to use. Unfortunately, WAY too many inexperienced dog owners use prong collars these days, even leaving them on their dogs 24/7. WAY too many dog training clubs and private trainers hand them out like candy. I agree with you that they are over used and misused, but I disagree that that has anything to do with Cesar except because the owners he is consulting have chosen one. Often he exchanges it for the backward leash or one of his slips anyway.

Prong collars and pc cover-ups to hide them have been around longer than CM and IMO have nothing to do with him. I have never heard him promote their use (and I believe I have seen every show at least once).

Cesar also says that the technique he suggests will not work if you don't agree with it. That is, if you have the bad feelings you suggest in your article, you will be ineffective and should find another way. He makes the same points you did about timing and level of corrections. He also has said that for low level issues (0-5) it is best to ignore them (extinction), but for high level behaviors (5-10) you must address - preferably snapping the dog out of it and redirecting him to an acceptable behavior using a calm approach - never out of anger or frustration. I know many trainers agree with that philosophy even if they use other methods.

Just as RJ Peters wrote above, I choose to take Cesar's good points and apply them with methods that work better for me. Cesar is not Evil. I think a lot of his detractors have not actually listened to a lot of what he says, but have taken a couple of clips and extrapolated. Their negative points would be better expressed if the "details" were more accurate.

I agree with you that more positive methods would be effective in place of some of Cesar's, but that message would be better spread by offering specific examples and techniques rather than the repeated Cesar bashing that causes people to "take sides". Why not spend your writing time and the attention you receive to put your specific kinder, gentler methods here to "convert" people instead of wasting it on points that are more likely to cause confusion in those who are not skilled trainers and need the help? Or are you really just here to arouse arguments as your Tweet suggested?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listener,

Thank you for your comments, there are a couple of things I wish to clarify.
I did not mean to suggest that Cesar advocated the use of prong collars. Rather, the advertisement for the prong collar I mentioned made me think about having to hide the fact that you use one; and in turn about following advice that may not sit well with your inner voice, which is what the original article was about.

I agree that if you don't believe in whatever training program you use, you will not see results. I do not think that Cesar is evil but I do think that his show and it's effects are generally bad for dogs and people. People hear the catchphrases and they see what he does and they don't pay attention to the warnings and disclaimers that I have seen on his show and read in his books. But Cesar also makes general statements in his Tweets (as do we all) that carry no disclaimers.

My biggest problem with Cesar is that I have a fundamental difference with his philosophy and think that explaining so much behavior as "dominance based" does a disservice to both dog and human.

I agree that showing people a different method instead of debating its' merits could be more effective tool and is something I promise to do in the future.

My intent is not to provoke argument but promote discussion. Sometimes we get carried away on our soapboxes (as I feel both calmassertive and I did), but I feel that my comments and suggestions have certainly been respectful and I am glad that your expressed yours in the same manner.

Thank you,

Kevin

calmassertive wrote on 02/17/10 8:11 PM

As an aside to the actual content of our discussion, let me preface by expressing appreciation for the willingness to Engage in the discussion. Clearly you are expending considerable mental energy here in an honest attempt at intelligent discourse, and while I'm not in agreement with most of what you say I want to at least respectfully acknowledge the opportunity to exchange views in this open forum. Many other authors simply delete my comments rather than respond to them.

*******************************************************************************
DLD->Part of having an idea is listening to others critique of it-- publicly stating that idea is an invitation to critique. As long as done respectfully, I will publish points of view contrary to my own. We may not agree on many things but I do appreciate your participation here.
*******************************************************************************

Regarding your point regarding the subjectivity of equating punishment with cruelty, in effect claiming that cruelty is in the eyes of the beholder, this can occupy a whole book in and of itself. Is feeding cheeseburgers to obese children cruelty? Is it cruelty to say to kids no TV after 9pm? The same fuzziness applies to the term Punishment. Cesar decries Punishment, decries Cruelty, decries being Harsh, preferring instead to be an advocate of Discipline and Correction.

The term Discipline carries with it far less emotional, pejorative baggage than Skinner's term Punishment. Discipline is a Good thing. Without Discipline you have whiny brats screaming at mommy in the grocery store to buy them a candy bar, or cocoa puffs. When mommy says ok to junior just to shut junior up she reinforces the bad behavior. When MY mommy told me NO, it shut ME up, and spared both of us the mental stress of going thru the process each and every time we went to the store. Discipline is not Cruel, and it is not Punishment.

********************************************************************************
DLD->I will agree with you that not all discipline is cruel and not meant as punishment. But some of the corrections I have seen used by Cesar on his show are very close to that line. However you must admit that in the Junior's case, another option would be to ignore his behavior and not buy the candy bar. If Junior's behavior never results in reinforcement, surely it will cease it time. There's no profit in it.
********************************************************************************

You noted how Skinner's Punishment aka Cesar's Discipline must be properly sized, properly timed, and properly consistent. Yep. Absolutely correct. We agree completely. And yes, it ain't easy. Cesar says over and over that it's Much Harder to teach the Humans than it is to change the behavior of the Dogs. But as in prior arguments, you fail to recognize that these Same observations apply to the Other conditioning quadrants. If you are trying to prevent junior from asking for cocoa puffs by, say, using a Negative Punishment technique, something like taking away his chocolate milk if he Asks for cocoa puffs, this must Also be consistently applied, for if one time he asks and you say Yes, you Can have cocoa puffs when you ask This time, junior will now proceed to ask Again and Again and Again. Just giving in one time will be viewed as a partial Reinforcement, and junior will be more dedicated than Ever to the behavior you were hoping would just magically extinguish itself. There is nothing singular in the 3 requirements you elucidate vis-a-vis Discipline -- they apply as well to All quadrants, and thus their applicability to One does not render that One any more or less Invalid than the others.

********************************************************************************
DLD->I agree that the same principles of timing, value, and consistency must be met with other methods. But in my opinion it is much easier and far less dangerous to figure out what your dog finds rewarding rather than to figure how how harsh a correction must be. Corrections do carry an increased risk of an aggressive response from the dog and increasing fear and apprehension of the owner.
********************************************************************************

Regarding your advice to simply Ignore unwanted behavior, surely you can't believe that. If my pit bull is eating your baby it's true that the behavior will eventually stop -- when the dog's stomach is full -- but arguing for Ignoring the behavior is absurd. Argument ad absurdem, less severe cases require the same non Ignoring of them. To those who know a simple, mild, well-timed correction can stop a yapping little chihuahua from making a non-stop racket -- i.e., me -- it's irritating as hell to watch an owner Ignore the behavior, hour after hour, day after day, Year after obnoxious Year. The poor dog ends up living in a stressed-out state for its entire life because of the lack of simple Discipline, the lack of simple leadership on the part of its owner telling the dog Stop that, it's not Necessary, I have things under control, You don't have to worry about it. And all the cookies in the world given to the dog when it Isn't yapping away are not going to discourage it one Iota when the upsetting stimulus again presents itself.

********************************************************************************
DLD->Of course I don't advocate ignoring destructive behavior. But there are many innocuous behaviors that dogs do that will simply extinguish themselves if they are not being reinforced.

You mention leadership, but why does leadership have to equal a correction? I have dealt with barky behavior by simply putting the bark on cue. And then putting the "quite word" on cue as well. I did not need to use a correction to do that.

I agree that if a particular method being used to stop a behavior is not working, then it's time to take a new tack. You have to find what motivates the dog.
********************************************************************************

The point we most disagree on, sadly, is that dogs live in a social hierarchical world. The english lexicon is full of references to pack leader, top dog, etc, for a reason -- a good reason -- it's True. To not see this once it's pointed out is incomprehensible to those to whom it is obvious. I can't speak to your personal experiences, but I would love to sit together in the midst of a 'bunch' of dogs and exchange observations. I certainly know what 'I' have seen. And Cesar certainly knows what He has seen, which I daresay is Many, Many more dogs in Many, Many more situations than Anyone writing an AVSAB article.

********************************************************************************
DLD->I do not disagree that dogs live and a social and hierarchical world. But certainly not to the degree that you and Cesar do. To me a dog wanting to burst out the door before me has nothing whatsoever to do with pack order or dominance. My message is that you can have a dog that respects you without having to use corrections. I also believe that there are many many trainers and behaviorist out there who have just as much experience as Cesar who agree with me as well.

At this point I welcome your comments back, but I believe that we are going to have to agree to disagree. I really do appreciate your taking the time to voice your opinions. I will always take the opportunity to learn from people, even if I do not agree with them.

Thank you,

Kevin

********************************************************************************

Jaqi Bunn wrote on 02/18/10 5:47 AM

What an interesting, civilised discussion. God I wish more people could politely engage in debate like this. Even with the diametrically opposed viewpoints here, the discussion remains readable and engaging.

Thank you, guys...

Listener wrote on 02/18/10 11:54 AM

This may not be Cesar's exact quote, but it is very close:

"Discipline is the art of maintaining control."

Discipline is what makes an athlete practice again and again. Discipline is what makes most of us not punch someone in the nose when they say something we don't like. Discipline is what makes us stop when the light is red and go when it is green so we are all "working" in unison. Discipline is what keeps any group working together toward a common goal - each individual doing their designated part even if some hold "more favorable" positions (including wolf packs or football teams). Discipline is good. When Cesar repeats his mantra "Exercise, Discipline and Affection" this is what he means by discipline.

Many of the dogs he and other trainers are called to help lack self-discipline because they were never taught it (just like those bratty kids). Now their unacceptable behaviors have gone to a higher level, is disruptive or dangerous, and no one is teaching them otherwise. No one is being the leader to show the dog (or kid) how they should behave, to regain that lost control. Leader = Teacher. If you listen to Cesar enough you will hear him say these things. Unfortunately he, as all of us, often uses 'short hand' (obviously on Tweets), TV editors cut and paste to fit the time slot and people are selective listeners. It is bad when those with no real understanding of their dogs take some bit they hear or see out of context and apply it incorrectly, but that applies to all trainers and all methods.

When Cesar says don't let your dog go through the door first or pull you on lead he is offering the people "easy exercises" to get them on the path to connecting with their dog, establishing control and, eventually, teaching self-discipline. There are times on the show he lets dogs go first, lets them bust through a gate ahead of him, etc. The shorthand catch phrase may be "never let your dog go ahead", but if you listen to the rest of the message and watch him interact with his own dogs there are plenty of exceptions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listener,

I agree that leadership is a needed thing. I would much rather it be described as direction or instruction though. Those words are much less likely to be interpreted (consciously or unconsciously) as something punitive.

I disagree with Cesar in the manner in which the discipline is applied. I think teaching our dogs to do what we want, instead of punishing them for what we don't is the best way to live with dogs. I think you and I and Cesar want the same things, we just disagree about terminology and how to go about them.

Kevin

Listener wrote on 02/18/10 7:32 PM

"I think teaching our dogs to do what we want, instead of punishing them for what we don't is the best way to live with dogs."

I totally agree. That is how I teach my own dogs. Although I am a fan of Cesar I have been a clicker trainer for 15+ yrs. I don't need any of Cesar's ideas for my own dogs. I use positive reinforcement with all the animals I work with and try to establish a partnership with them. But the time a foster dog latched on to my hand and did not let go as the blood flowed I did not reach for my clicker. I was glad I had watched Cesar and had an idea how to get my hand back and remain calm and end that encounter peacefully with no one else getting hurt. None of my previous experience with 30+ dogs and positive reinforcement prepared me for that moment. Cesar did.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

All we can do is avail ourselves of as much knowledge about a subject as we can. It is then up to us what to use and what not to. I read Cesar's books and watch some of his shows, as well as other people with whom I don't always agree simply because I think everyone has something to teach. I'm glad that watching Cesar enabled you to get your hand back.

Kevin

gooddogtrainingschool wrote on 02/26/10 6:38 AM

Can I just point out that the opposite of reward is not punishment, it is no reward!