Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2011, 05:00 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2011 05:07 AM by Observer.)
Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
I have a dog...
She is fairly smart and kind but likes the end of the leash too much. No problem for me with my 89Kg but it is very hard on my petite wife.
To keep her from pulling her leash (the dog, not the wife Smile) I bought this perfectly working contraption.
[Image: e4765564c9ba8b61738f863d4ec39de5.jpg&...height=290]
While walking, I often encounter dog owners (and non-dog owners) who have never seen this "gentle leader" and they ask how it works...
"Does it choke them when they pull?"
"Does it hurts their nose?"
I then explain that the strap over their muzzle acts a a sign of dominance in the dog psychology . When alpha-wolves want to signal their dominance over a subject, one of the things they can do is gently bite their muzzle. The same happens here with the gentle-leader. as the dog pulls, the strap gently pulls the muzzle down and the dog halts. Works great, does not hurt my friend and is not aggressive.

What bothers me is the way people respond to this. Why is it that the first thing that comes to peoples mind is chocking, hurting, etc. Why is the first thing people think that a hard and aggressive approach is the best? Not only with dogs, even among themselves and their children. I don't get it!

Consider this:
If you want car owners to put thier cars on a certain place, are you going to yell and wave your fist at them when they drive onto the area. Are you going to push them until they cooporate?
Or... Are you going to drawn white lines on the ground, and put a sign up with a big P on it.

People often have strange reasoning...
In general, a soft approach works fine.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 06:14 AM
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
As a dog trainer, I feel your frustration brother. I use traditional chain chokers for training. To show my clients how my training works, I demonstrate with a dog I've already trained. I'll show them the dog being obedient on leash, with no verbal commands. Strictly leash communication. Then to show them that the purpose is not to "choke" the dog, I remove the choker and leash and show that I get the same response when I hold the choker in my hand and shake it. The dog hears the familiar sound of the chain, and it's reminded to pay attention. It's gentle, kind, harmless, and uses dominance to teach the dog who the leader is.

Keep on training. We need more responsible dog owners like yourself!

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 06:36 AM
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
I think in this case it has a lot to do with what people are used to of seeing. The stereotype belt on the collar is what we are all used to of seeing. So it's obvious that people who never saw it before (since yours is not the most common type of belt) may consider it to be a strange thing. The question that comes up next is probably: why would you make a dog wear a strap around it's muzzle? People are very good at filling their question marks with negative ideas and that would probably be the case here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 08:42 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2011 08:51 AM by Observer.)
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
hmmm....
good thinking Tim

I hope the topic can be broaden out, but while writing I was out of inspiration...

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 02:09 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2011 02:44 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
(22-04-2011 05:00 AM)The_observer Wrote:  People often have strange reasoning...
In general, a soft approach works fine.
To be quite honest with you, observer, your approach to explaining it here is somewhat lacking, so I can only imagine your demeanor on the streets with the new product. Here on the Internet it is helpful if you can provide a link to the product, and possibly a brief summary from the product's web page, both of which help the discussion understand from what may be a more expert source of information.
Quote:Millions of dog owners today enjoy the benefits of stress-free walks thanks to the Gentle Leader Headcollar. Designed so that owners can communicate with their pet in a way they instinctively understand, the Gentle Leader painlessly and effectively removes the dog’s natural tendency to pull by placing gentle pressure on calming points and eliminating uncomfortable pressure on the throat. In addition to reducing a dog’s desire to pull away, the Gentle Leader is also a very effective tool in combating lunging, jumping, excessive barking and helping to calm an aggressive and/or anxious animal.

As it was, the graphic information, you provided was somewhat lacking, I had to take a walk and think about it to understand how when the dog extends the leash it pulls the muzzle down, even though you did explain the action - the placement of the "dog psychology" reference at the beginning probably caused some interference. Now that I understand that, I wonder about other aspects, like how long does it take for the dog understand it and obey? I also wonder how come I have not seen it here in NYC, if there are millions of users? Maybe, because I am not looking closely enough, and am more interested in the dogs that are hauling their owners down the board walk.

Anyway, I haven't taken the time to watch the video, but I would rather it have a more symmetrical action. but that may not matter.

But yeah, lets extend this discussion to cover how we can use this leash on people . . . Yeah, how do we teach old dogs new tricks? . . . People do not want to be told that what they believe is incorrect and that they need to modify their thinking; especially atheists, because of their inherent belief that their ability to get along with theists is because of their inherent superior intellect and tolerance threshold to recognize when god belief is effecting communications. I have a lot of difficulty explaining that to atheists, and it appears to me that most other atheists have the same problem with other atheists, because atheists just love being so different then everyone else, but have no appreciation for other independent thinkers - or what is it???

Consider Filox, here. . .

(22-04-2011 04:12 AM)Filox Wrote:  TrainWreck, maybe you have a good idea, and maybe you are superior in some ways, but the way you present yourself and your ideas is bad. That is why people don't get you. I've seen your categorization and I still don't understand what it is, what is it for and do I need to categorize anything, if I don't work in a library? Does that make me stupider than you? No, it makes you poorly explaining everything about your classification, why is it used and how. So if you want people to understand you, follow you and listen to you, you should learn how to talk to people and how to present yourself. Specially if you are intellectually superior, you can not explain thing in your own way, because those of us that are intellectually inferior will not understand what you are saying.

Do you understand now, when I simplify things for you? Maybe you are not the only one who is intellectually superior...

Smile
It sounds to me like she's trying to tell me how to think and act - she needs to understand that I am not joining in her lock-step atheist religious group, I am an independent critical thinker.

And check out these guys. Clearly they didn't want to comprehend the information.
(22-04-2011 02:08 PM)Tim_Kiebooms Wrote:  Reclassifying everything seems to be pretty insane and pretty useless as well, but if it makes you feel happy, sure go ahead. Also there's more knowledge than any human mind can cary in a single lifetime at the moment, so you're going to have a hard time with making it waterproof.
That is why we need a good classification system, and why I made the claim, as follows . . .
(21-04-2011 05:27 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-04-2011 10:35 AM)BnW Wrote:  Earlier, you said you had created your super terrific classification system and that this made intellectually superior; you were Wile E. Coyote, super genius. But, now it turns out that you've created nothing, the intellectual equivalent of Elmer Fudd.
Please, obviously, I have not created nothing - there is a unique list that you, and everyone else, can review. I am a genius because I recognized the collation system and applied it to devise the classification system. The classification system will not make a person a genius, it will however, make people smarter by increasing their ability to understand how concepts of technology are associated (cross-reference), which subsequently, increases their ability to access the correct areas of technology for their research.
(21-04-2011 11:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And Trainwrecks classification system that is designed to segregate us based on belief is no more valid than segregating us based on race/gender/height/pizza topping preference.
The system is not designed to segregate people, it is designed to be a better rendition of arrangement of knowledge. My opinion concerning social segregation is based on the concept of scientific experiment, where it is necessary to distinguish the control from the experiment group.[/quote]

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 02:22 PM
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
I thought the same thing when I saw dogs with that type of leash on, I must admit. For me my thought process was "I would not want that on my face!" I do understand that it is a more humane way of walking your dog though. To be honest I always despised the whole wrapping a rope around an animals neck and pulling on it too. I would rather a dog be able to walk freely without restraint but that is an obviously bad idea.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 02:35 PM
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
I worked in a pet store for 4 and 1/2 years, and those gentle leaders are an excellent product. They were always my first stop when explaining training products to a customer. If they had to have the choker, or worse the barbed choker, I never said anything to the contrary. I only started getting annoyed when it came to the electric fences. It's my understanding that certain rescue groups make you buy and install an invisible fence as part of the deal for adopting one of their dogs. Fine. But the manual collars where the owner controls the zap with a remote? That's cruel. I've tested those collars out on myself, both on my arm and on my neck, from the lowest setting to the highest, just so I could experience what those poor dogs would have to. Even though I can't honestly describe the reaction as painful, even on the highest level, the surprise of the sudden involuntary jerking/spasming of whatever muscle(s) the contacts are adjacent to is not something I would subject an unwilling, unknowing and unconsenting living creature to. And I've talked to individuals who smirked or laughed at the idea.

Something something something Dark Side
Something something something complete
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 02:46 PM
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
(22-04-2011 02:09 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Consider Filox, here. . .

(22-04-2011 04:12 AM)Filox Wrote:  TrainWreck, maybe you have a good idea, and maybe you are superior in some ways, but the way you present yourself and your ideas is bad. That is why people don't get you. I've seen your categorization and I still don't understand what it is, what is it for and do I need to categorize anything, if I don't work in a library? Does that make me stupider than you? No, it makes you poorly explaining everything about your classification, why is it used and how. So if you want people to understand you, follow you and listen to you, you should learn how to talk to people and how to present yourself. Specially if you are intellectually superior, you can not explain thing in your own way, because those of us that are intellectually inferior will not understand what you are saying.

Do you understand now, when I simplify things for you? Maybe you are not the only one who is intellectually superior...

Smile
It sounds to me like she's trying to tell me how to think and act - she needs to understand that I am not joining in her lock-step atheist religious group, I am an independent critical thinker.

That's pretty off-topic, but i think you misunderstand filox. There's nothing wrong with having your own theories, but if you want to share it with a public forum you need to make sure that when people read it they can understand what you mean. You won't convince anyone of your theory if you claim they lack intelligence when they don't understand what you're saying. Everyone has their own way of thinking and interpreting (you are a perfect example). Having the intelligence to communicate with people who think differently is all part of your Social Intelligence and it seems your social intellect, at this point, is anything but superior.

I also think the information that the-observer gave sufficed for this discussion, we all have the ability to google something if we're interested in knowing more about something.
also I'm sorry if i went a bit too far off-topic Undecided
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 02:48 PM
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
OK, kicking into dog trainer mode here:

A little information about dogs first. If you want to compare a dogs neck to a part of your own body, the best comparison is your thigh. A dogs neck is nothing like ours with relation to the rest of the body. The reason the "gentle leader" is effective is because it causes a great deal MORE discomfort when the dog pulls. I am not condemning it, but it's important to understand that a collar around a dogs neck is NOTHING like one around a humans.

A dog that is trained with a traditional collar, a gentle leader (there's many brands, and are referred to in general as a muzzle leader), or even a body harness will react the same way if the training is done properly. None of these devices should be used to restrain a dog. They are use as communication. When you put pressure, it gains the dogs attention, and takes it's attention away from other things. If your dog recognizes you as the alpha, it will respond the way it's been trained to. Even in extreme situations, a well trained dog that knows where it stands will be easily distracted from anything, and it's concentration will be brought back to you. The advantage of a muzzle leader is that it requires very little pressure to gain the dogs attention (a benefit for people without much streingth when they are first training a new dog) and it helps a new owner to direct the attention to him/her, because it phsycally turns the dogs head in the owners direction.

A dog walking without restraint in any way is a very risky proposition. Only the very best trained dog with an extremely well educated handler should have a dog unrestrained in a situation that could cause harm to the dog or others. There are exceptions to this of course, but as a general rule, I teach my clients to always use a lead, since it is their most effective means of communication.

Now a bit of a brag. My border collie is the best trained dog I've ever encountered. She can understand me simply through head nods, and has proven her ability to focus even in the most unbelievable situations. She knows well over 100 verbal commands (the myth that a dog can only learn a certain number is just that. A myth), and dozens of hand signals. In fact, she will go to something simply by following my eyes. My point is, the leash shouldn't be your ONLY means of communication, but it is an indispensible one in any uncontrolled environment.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 03:08 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2011 03:48 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Why a hard approach in trying to convey a message?
A hundred verbal commands???
Do you have a list?
If you have a list and a description of the technique imposed to get the dog to respond to each command, even if it tends to be a hierarchy list of subcommands - I assure you, you have some publishing potential.

Even if you can break it down into some general commands that lead to more detailed commands that may need modifying for different dog demeanors.
(22-04-2011 02:46 PM)Tim_Kiebooms Wrote:  also I'm sorry if i went a bit too far off-topic Undecided
This thread is not to be about dogs, but about how people explain things and their peculiar reasoning - We are in the Philosophy category.

Dog care, for this particular forum, would be better classified in Entertainment, Science, or the Casual Coffee House. Sure, it could be classified in Philosophy, but it is further down the recursiveness of the hierarchy, where there are more appropriate general categories, on hand, and most people see Philosophy as effecting people exclusively.


Okay, I watched the video. It was made to get the casual pet owners' attention. It did not show how it is applied for the first time with a dog - if that matters. And it did not show how it effects the dog when meeting other dogs.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: