Basset Hounds Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I wonder if dogs have a sense of fairness. Like if one gets treats and the other doesn't, does the one who didn't get one feel like I'm being unfair? I've always wondered if that's the way it is. I make sure that if one gets treats so does the other, if one gets tummy rubs then so does the other, etc and so forth. I was just curious as to what others thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
I've heard that dogs don't get jealous, however those experts that say that don't have dogs. We try to keep everything equal here, sometimes without choice. There have been many times when I would be giving love to one dog and another would force their way in. They are much smarter than the so called "experts" give them credit for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,780 Posts
Well, they definitely want what the other has. dunno if it's "jealousy" or just "wanting as much as i can ever get."

Worm says: My teacher Mrs. C says the best way to teach us something is to treat ANOTHER dog in the class when we aren't doing something right. and it seems true. i'm learning long-range recall so i can run off-leash at the school. the fastest way to get me to come back is when my person starts giving treats to the other dogs that are around.

Haha, here we are always crowding around trying to get treats from all the peeples (pic here is with my Auntie Melinda). sometimes we get passed over accidentally or on purpose tho :(
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,740 Posts
I don't always give Esa her treat first because she is dominate,I make her wait but if I turn my back she is seeing what she can get out of Vinny's mouth. As far as fairness I don't think they have a concept of fairness so much as they see one get something and want the thing the other one got. MikeyT shoud have something to say on this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
Both dogs in our house answer to Harley. Anabelle knows that when we call Harley he is getting something good so she comes too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,960 Posts
I wonder if dogs have a sense of fairness. Like if one gets treats and the other doesn't, does the one who didn't get one feel like I'm being unfair
There is something very different between being fair and being equal but humans often have a hard time with this concept. If a give a dog a treat for following a command it is actual unfair to give a dog that did nothing a treat as well. Also the value of a treat/reward varies considerable between individual dogs. If you have two dogs one that likes food more than play and one the other way roundg like play more than food. Even if tyou give each dog the same of everything, if you provide treats a lot more often then play then you are not being fair to the dog that enjoys play more. So equality is not necesarily fair and in most cases rarely is.


That said studies of group dog behavior say their society/culture interaction between individual is based on balancing two principals maximizing the pleasure/ happiness of the individual dogs again maxzimizing pleasure/happiness between all the dogs. For some dog where particular spot to lie down is most important they can be found there part of this is because this is most important to them they deffer some other potential pleasure a toy etc to have the spot. It is also because other dogs through behavior can see this spot is more important to the other dog than them and don't press the issue as well. There appears to be some ability toward empathy.

Let us get back to thee fairness issue and say treats. IMHO i do not think dog that come over for a treat are say hey "no fair what about me" but rather they have learned 1 . it is likely that a treat for them is also coming. or 2. such behavior prompt action on the part of the human to give them a treat.

! have dogs in training situation wait patiently for there turn don't feel left out etc. However When my mother Is over practicing her brand of socialism The dog learn never to go out to pee at the same time to maximize treat potential since each dog gets a treat when one goes out to pee. The same dogs when she is not here do not go running up for a treat unless they when out. So I think a lot of the Feeling left out behavior is learned.

Murray is the 'leader' here, so he gets treats first-
don't always give Esa her treat first because she is dominate
I do not believe dog form packs much less have a hierarchy especial a rigid one that can bedefined as a pecking order. Look at even the sites that proclaim ther is a pack hierarchy. The will say Alpha's rarely fight are so secure in their postion that they will let subordinates eat first, have a choice sleeping spot. I am sorry but this is now trying to make the actual situation on the fit a preconcieved notion. A much more likely explaination is the so called alpha is not when looked at objectively with standard predetermind before the study begain observers are coming to the conclusion there is no such thing as dominance heirarchy, subordinant hierachy or any other hierarchy. and the situation is very fluid between dogs based on what the resource is the dogs involved etc.


Dominance in domestic dogs useful construct or bad habit?​



The term ‘‘dominance’’ is widely used in the academic and popular literature on the behavior
of domestic dogs, especially in the context of aggression. Although dominance is correctly a property
of relationships, it has been erroneously used to describe a supposed trait of individual dogs, even
though there is little evidence that such a trait exists. When used correctly to describe a relationship
between 2 individuals, it tends to be misapplied as a motivation for social interactions, rather than simply
a quality of that relationship. Hence, it is commonly suggested that a desire ‘to be dominant’ actually
drives behavior, especially aggression, in the domestic dog. By contrast, many recent studies of
wolf packs have questioned whether there is any direct correspondence between dominance within a
relationship and agonistic behavior, and in contrast to wolves, hierarchical social structures have little
relationship with reproductive behavior in feral dog packs. Nor do the exchanges of aggressive and submissive
behavior in feral dogs, originally published by S. K. Pal and coworkers, fit the pattern predicted
from wolf behavior, especially the submissive behavior observed between members of different packs.
In the present study of a freely interacting group of neutered male domestic dogs, pairwise relationships
were evident, but no overall hierarchy could be detected. Since there seems to be little empirical

basis for wolf-type dominance hierarchies in dogs, the authors have examined alternative constructs[/url]

Why Won't Dominance Die?
It is easy to see why trainers and owners alike are fond of the concepts of “pack” and “dominance” in relation to pet dogs. A pack means we’re all part of the same gang. “Dominance” explains our respective positions in that pack. We live in a pack with our pet dogs and they either dominate us or we dominate them. To be at the top of the pack with total dominance would make you the “alpha”, with all the esteem that entails, therefore dogs will strive for dominance unless you beat them to it. It’s a neat explanation.
Except that none of it actually bears scientific scrutiny.

This meme originated in the “dogs are wolves” theory in the late 1960s. It was spawned in the pond of genetics from the premise that if a dog is the same species as the wolf they must behave identically. The perceived wisdom at the time, emanating from L. David Mech’s book, The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species(2), was that wolves pack and dominate each other, therefore dogs must also pack and dominate each other. The theories of wolf and dog “dominance” and the “alpha” firmly entered the imagination of not only the public, but also the scientific community.

...However, as science advances our viewpoint changes and in Mech’s case, as he points out in his 2008 article Whatever Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf?(3) more rigorous examination of wild living wolves revealed that their social behaviour was centred on the family unit, built around cohesion and co-operation, not conflict. A fight for pack dominance would mean striving to displace one parent in order to mate with the other. The model of the wolf’s supposed fight for dominance and alpha status was replaced with one where parents and older siblings guide and lead younger offspring in order to enhance overall genetic fitness. In 1999 Mech published Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs(4), in which he corrected his earlier mistaken ideas.

It has been well established that the social behaviour of the domestic dog is unlike that of the wolf. The domestic dog is a neotonised version of the wolf-type ancestor, a specialised variant that evolved into a newly formed environmental niche to scavenge the domestic waste of human settlements. These adaptations removed the need to operate as a true wolf pack and consequently there is little collaboration in hunting or in care of offspring, but much more cooperation with strangers, dog or human. Although dogs congregate in groups around resources, they do not form packs in the cohesive family way that wolves still do.


Preferences will become established in repeated encounters, but pet dog relationships are far too complicated to be defined through a simple, “one individual dominates another”. A smooth relationship is one in which each knows the other’s preferences and defers accordingly. This is often described in terms of resource holding potential(6), but the important aspect of it is that it is emergent, not the result of pre-programmed “dominance”.
And that is the point pecking order, hieracrhies all speak to a human instinct to find order amongst cause. The problem is we tend to project ourseleves in our observations and taint them. A good fluid social networks is much more complicated and fluid than can be explained of even accomplished by some ridged heirarchal contsruct. Whe do dog and other social creatures a disservice to their intellengence whe we continue to prepetuate such myths.


That is not to say suport the Alpha or suport the omeaga have no uses it is just how they work is different than though, The work by providing concistency. A dog that knows it os alway going to be second no matter what is going to be less pushy is is all about consistncy and nothing about pack order. For example When it comes to feed multiple dog I am very consistent in order. It has npthing to do with hierarchy, which dog has a prefference for food etc and everything to do with the speed the dog eats. I feed the slowest dog first eventual getting to the fast. The result is the dogs finish about the same time eliminating the need desire to check out the others food bowl. Every dog know the situation and how it works and is comfortable with there place.

So back to the original question Do dogs understan equality YEs they can count. And they have some measuer of "fairnes" and what that exactly means to dog we will not know. That said I still think much of the behavior people associate , jelousy, etc is not accurate and more of a learned behavior. That is the dog that butts in learned that when it does so it can get petted as well. The onwer that is more dilligent in not reward such rude and obnoxious behavior has dogs that display far fewier than them


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,960 Posts
Ok,I still disagree on this one but thats just me.

On no not just you, The new studies are in realitive terms very recent. a new progresive understand of animal behavior is emerging but certainly it will take time to be embraced by all as if that is even possible, and it is likely that ten years from know that some major flaws in the new model show up as well.


From a scientifc aspect for a theory to can legs it need to be the simplest all encompansing explaination But when you get two so called experts that when looking a a two dog dynamic can agree on a alpha. when you have so many exception ie males linear hierarchy not so with females that change hourly/ daily . Alpha confined they can defere etc at some point it is clear it is not encompasing as it should be there are some major problems. There are some much simpler explinations. Which the newer therories are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Mikey T;116390 The new studies are in realitive terms very recent. a new progresive understand of animal behavior is emerging but certainly it will take time to be embraced by all as if that is even possible said:
Thanks for posting, it's always interesting to see recent research and new theories. Because we're humans and not dogs, I wonder if it's possible to really understand what's going on in their brains.

I'm a bottom line kind of person. Whether I'm supporting a pack heierarchy or just being consistant when I treat Murray first doesn't really matter to me; I just do what it takes to keep harmony between my dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,960 Posts
I wonder if it's possible to really understand what's going on in their brain
Never know for sure but with tightly control observation you can get an inkling whats going on but at the same time we must be congnizant of biases we bring to the table so at least some of what we attribute to dogs is more a reflexition of human understanding of its own society rather than simply dogs.

I'm a bottom line kind of person. Whether I'm supporting a pack heierarchy or just being consistant when I treat Murray first doesn't really matter to me; I just do what it takes to keep harmony between my dogs.
Of course what works for you is most important but when misinterpreted and misapplied the dominance/hierarchy has led to some pretty gruesome consequence for owners and dogs a like that is part of my thought process in try to teach offer advice is to provide advice and explaination for that advice so even in things don't work out no real harm is done. That is the problem with this form of short communication, the lack of timely feedback and need to deal with generallities rather than specifics can lead to some giant incorrect conclusions.
I'm a bottom line kind of person. Whether I'm supporting a pack heierarchy or just being consistant when I treat Murray first doesn't really matter to me; I just do what it takes to keep harmony between my dogs.

I'm a bottom line kind of person. Whether I'm supporting a pack heierarchy or just being consistant when I treat Murray first doesn't really matter to me; I just do what it takes to keep harmony between my dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
that is part of my thought process in try to teach offer advice is to provide advice and explaination for that advice so even in things don't work out no real harm is done. That is the problem with this form of short communication, the lack of timely feedback and need to deal with generallities rather than specifics can lead to some giant incorrect conclusions.
Even though you and I have had our differences on this forum regarding the Pa. Dog Law, I've always appreciated the time you take and the effort you make to post information to help everyone on this forum. You've helped me with some of Murray's health issues in the past- I always try to read the links you post and have learned alot.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top