# Great response



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

I have permission to cross post this from the author of this post at Dog Star Daily. Dr. VanFleet just happens to be a member of IAABC but that's not the reason that I thought it was so good.

This was in response to someone advocating more forceful training methods and who had made some rather extreme

claims about science-based approaches. 
"As a human psychologist and a canine behaviorist, I have eagerly read the latest research on canine cognition

and it actually points far, far away from the use of shock and aversive methods. The research is showing clearly

that dogs are as multifaceted as we are with behaviors, emotions, and cognitions interwoven into a complex whole,

and the parts of their brains that regulate emotion and behavior are remarkably similar to our own

(neurobiologists have raised the tongue-in-cheek question about where do we think our brain structures and

processes come from, anyway). Furthermore, the most recent oxytocin studies clearly show that it is touching and

kindness that help dogs, horses, people, and others overcome fears. Overall, I think Suzanne Clothier (Bones

Would Rain...) has it completely right - it IS about the relationship. Relationships involve empathy,

reciprocity, and benevolent leadership no matter what species you talk about. Relationships happen on several

dimensions, including behaviors, emotions, and cognitions. Humans are capable of having healthy and unhealthy

relationships with each other or with dogs. The key is to find the best route to healthy relationships, and the

overwhelming bulk of psychological research shows that kindness and empathy are of utmost importance."
Behaviorism has never discounted the existence of internal states, such as cognitions and emotions - it

simply stated that they couldn't be seen or measured, so they focused on the externals. Times have been

changing, first with applied behavioral analysis that takes motivation into account, and currently with more

holistic approaches that look at the total animal (how behavior, emotions, and cognitions all interact). Now we

can measure these things much better, and lots has been evolving here. Furthermore, the approaches that focus on

relationship, the canine point-of-view, and anticipating what's important to the dog and reacting accordingly go

quite a bit past what we used to call radical behaviorism. In psychology, behaviorism is one school of thought

among many, and it has its place and value. Although trained as a behaviorist originally, I've also been trained

in cognitive therapy, and my specialties are in play therapy and family relationship therapies. I have an

appreciation for approaches that are more holistic because people, dogs, horses, and lots of other animals are

really very complex beings. As I have immersed myself in the worlds of dogs and horses, I've seen a lot of

people looking at things through this multifaceted lens. One of the reasons that I really appreciate learning

canine communication and stress signals is that they give me some real cues about what is going on inside the

dog, rather than my making assumptions.

To me, the goal is not to throw out behaviorism. There's lots of good science behind it. It offers us many

valuable tools to use to help our dogs learn (and us, too!). It's just not the entire picture, and I see many

people in the dog training community saying just that. It's a bit like physics (I was a physics major eons ago

until I realized I wasn't so hot at calculus). Newton's theories actually still apply under a wide set of

circumstances, but not all. Einstein's theory of relativity is more complex and explained what was happening in

an even wider set of circumstances. And the field has gone on quite far from there. Theories are refined or

reconfigured to apply to more and more circumstances. Behaviorism is alive and well, and so is cognitive theory,

affective science and neuroscience, relationship psychology, and positive psychology that focuses on strengths

rather than weaknesses. It just seems to me like there is very, very strong evidence from biological science,

ethology, neurobiology, as well as from the varying branches of psychology (where studies of empathy are all over

the place now, re. humans and many other species) that positive methods that do not use aversives are the way to

go. Plus, the kinder, gentler approaches can still help dogs be very well behaved, give them a bit of autonomy

to just be who they are, and still give me the type of reciprocal and caring relationships I want to have with my

companion animals.

Rise VanFleet, Ph.D. www.playfulpooch.org


----------



## pjewel (Apr 11, 2007)

From a purely humanitarian, unscientific perspective, I would have to agree.


----------



## Kathie (Jul 31, 2008)

Thanks, Dave, I signed up for their newsletter.


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

Kathie said:


> Thanks, Dave, I signed up for their newsletter.


 Yeah I checked her site out too and also signed up for her newletter, (i love newsletters) LOL. I just received a couple of emails from her after I asked her permission . Very nice lady and very rewarding work she does.


----------

