|
Post by michele5611 on Oct 17, 2013 13:21:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 17, 2013 13:39:44 GMT -5
Thank you for posting this! I was JUST thinking that I needed to find and post this article that I just briefly skimmed past on FB yesterday but I couldn't remember where or what it was called.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 17, 2013 13:48:53 GMT -5
Sadly, I don't think this info will influence people to train more humane. The majority of dog owners I have known believe already that dogs feel love. Also, a lot of really bad methods used to train dogs are sold as harmless - so you can shock a dog and consider it "teaching the dog that there are consequences". There is a huge disconnect between what is done to dogs and what the trainer believes he/she is actually DOING to the dog to begin with. I would venture to say that a lot of people who use the worst/most harsh methods don't understand the damage/pain they are inflicting on their dogs. They just think this is how you train dogs. It's not like this info will suddenly get them to think, "Oh, this means I should stop HURTING my dog now, because I know understand he loves me!"
ALSO the anthropomorphizing of dogs IMO contributes to training abuse. Ideas like "Dogs should KNOW better", "he KNOWS he did something WRONG", "My dog is being SPITEFUL", etc, are all justifications used to inflict pain on dogs. Sooooo a study proving dogs are sentient, loving beings - i.e. making them out to be more "human" - may not exactly help dogs in exactly all the ways one would hope it would.
Just thinkin' aloud.
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Oct 17, 2013 13:58:15 GMT -5
Furthermore, you know not all dogs can be trained using positive methods.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 17, 2013 14:00:16 GMT -5
Furthermore, you know not all dogs can be trained using positive methods. Oh yeah, science only applies to some dogs, not others.
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Oct 17, 2013 14:03:35 GMT -5
Science, Schmience Mary!
|
|
|
Post by megan on Oct 17, 2013 20:25:32 GMT -5
Furthermore, you know not all dogs can be trained using positive methods. Oh yeah, science only applies to some dogs, not others. Yeah, well, duh. That's because Learning Theory is just a theory, and there are lots of theories out there.....
|
|
|
Post by megan on Oct 17, 2013 20:45:56 GMT -5
Sadly, I don't think this info will influence people to train more humane. The majority of dog owners I have known believe already that dogs feel love. Also, a lot of really bad methods used to train dogs are sold as harmless - so you can shock a dog and consider it "teaching the dog that there are consequences". There is a huge disconnect between what is done to dogs and what the trainer believes he/she is actually DOING to the dog to begin with. I would venture to say that a lot of people who use the worst/most harsh methods don't understand the damage/pain they are inflicting on their dogs. They just think this is how you train dogs. It's not like this info will suddenly get them to think, "Oh, this means I should stop HURTING my dog now, because I know understand he loves me!" ALSO the anthropomorphizing of dogs IMO contributes to training abuse. Ideas like "Dogs should KNOW better", "he KNOWS he did something WRONG", "My dog is being SPITEFUL", etc, are all justifications used to inflict pain on dogs. Sooooo a study proving dogs are sentient, loving beings - i.e. making them out to be more "human" - may not exactly help dogs in exactly all the ways one would hope it would. Just thinkin' aloud. I very much agree with this sentiment. It's particularly concerning because, if we can speculate that a dog feels a certain way based on a certain part of their brain lighting up when presented with a certain stimuli, it can very easily lead us down a scary pathway, specifically one that justifies the use of force. For example.... How many times have you heard, "See, he's guilty. He KNOWS he's wrong." as justification for punishment....? Does that mean that we can speculate that a dog is feeling guilty, and assume he or she knew they were wrong? So, if they knew they were wrong, it's acceptable to punish the dog, no...? Also, here's a rebuttal post I read. I liked how it reminds us that even animals we don't consider to be "human," like fish, react to stimuli that indicate the presentation of food. If we could get an MRI scan of a fish, and the caudate nucleus lights up when presented with and event or signal predicting food, that we should assume fish are people too? Certainly I understand the purpose of the study and can appreciate the implications, but I think "dogs are people, too," is a bit of a stretch and actually dumbs down the science a bit. unlikelyactivist.com/2013/10/07/dogs-arent-people-and-we-wouldnt-want-them-to-be/
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 18, 2013 7:14:01 GMT -5
Oh yeah, science only applies to some dogs, not others. Yeah, well, duh. That's because Learning Theory is just a theory, and there are lots of theories out there..... Hah! I love when people say "such and such is ONLY a "theory", remember!" Then they go off on some tangent on some belief system they have with NO basis in real fact or science-theory. Hey, I'm open minded and not married to modern science but seriously, when someone shows such a complete lack of understanding of what exactly a scientific theory IS and then dismisses something because it's "just" a scientific theory, I question their level of comprehension of the world around them. /rant Oh, thanks so much for posting that rebuttal. I was thinking about doing a blog post on the original article myself, this rebuttal is very helpful. Hope everyone who read the original article reads this one as well.
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Oct 18, 2013 22:01:25 GMT -5
Remember the DNA expert and his cronies who asserted that there were scientific studies that proved that there are no breed traits.. and it turned out they were referencing ONE study that concluded "head shape does not correlate to behavior"? Same thing.
|
|