Do Scientists Love Their Dogs Too?

I’m a science-minded kind of guy.  Big time.  I used to work with computer network systems professionally.  When systems acted erratically, a solution needed to be found. Those systems would always perform according to their configuration. I might believe I knew where the problem was but until I worked out what was really going on, there was going to be a problem even if it wasn’t acting consistent or predictable.  So I learned to be systematic and to keep digging until I understood the problem and why it was happening.  Only then could I really fix it.

A decade ago our dog Vince showed me that I didn’t understand dogs.  I thought I did.  I had read books and done the scruff shakes and alpha dog thing just as instructors and dog “experts” had told me to do over the years.  We had owned dogs for more than 20 years at that point and none seemed particularly problematic – until Vince.  When it all fell apart with Vince I turned to what I knew from my professional life – Science.

New puppy – the science experiment begins

My girl Tiramisu is now 9 years old.  When she arrived here at 10 weeks old, she wasn’t just our next dog.  She was an experiment.  Our issues with Vince had pushed me to learn the most current information on dogs and training.  My reading lead me to positive reinforcement training, learning theory, Operant and Classical Conditioning, and clicker training.  In that methodical way I had learned with computer networks, I tried to use every bit of what I was learning to see if it was, in fact, a valid way to approach teaching and living with dogs.

Much of what I was learning from the new science of dogs and animal learning was turning what I had believed for years on it’s head.  The new books said I should start training right away, at 10 weeks or sooner.  The “conventional wisdom” I had heard before was to wait until the puppy is 6 months old before starting formal training, just let the puppy be a puppy for a while.  What amazed me when I started my training with Tira when she first arrived was not that she learned quickly and seemed eager to learn new things.  What amazed me was that it seemed to make her calmer and more focused than our previous dogs were at that age.  She just didn’t seem to get into trouble as much.

And so I progressed with her training, first basic manners and then more rigorous training for the sport of dog agility.  At each step, I tried to be conscious of all of the variables – what was I doing with my body, what was my rate of reinforcement, how long was the training session, was I fading prompts quickly enough, had I generalized the behaviour to various situations and environments, and so on.  As the behaviours I wanted to train became more complex,  I had to carefully plan the process to communicate effectively with my dog.  The science of dogs, behaviour, and animal learning was invaluable to me.  It provided an unbiased, unvarnished methodology for how to analyse and modify behaviour and a system for troubleshooting when we hit difficulties in training.  Put simply, it all worked better than I ever could have imagined.

Of dogs and machines

Data, methodology, analysis, implementation plans – as it was with computers, so it seemed to be with dogs.  Science to the rescue once again for me. Using this new scientific approach to dogs was producing smarter, better behaved dogs that fit into our lives exactly as we hoped.  The approach that had served me so well for 20 plus years with computers was working brilliantly with my dogs.  Observe – assess – implement solution – evaluate results – repeat as necessary with appropriate adjustments.  To someone watching me, the whole thing could look cold, dispassionate, clinical, and results focused.  No room for love.

Heaven knows I didn’t love the computer networks I worked on.  Many times I would have happily melted them all down and started from scratch to solve a complex problem.  Behavioural science, with it’s “criteria” and “analysis” and complex terminology, appears to treat our dogs as machines.  In fact, many critics of using behavioural science with our dogs have said exactly that.  And they argue that dogs are not simple input-output machines that can be manipulated like programmable robots.

In many cases, the rhetoric of these critics goes well beyond simply chastising the science-based trainer for being dispassionate.  There are suggestions that we are emotionless, that we do not truly understand the complexities of our wonderful dogs.  Some suggest that our desire to change behaviour effectively and in a way that eliminates conflict is “too simplistic” and doesn’t take into consideration the other, often only vaguely defined, important aspects of dogs and training.  So the criticism is that in addition to not loving our dogs, we are ignorant of their true nature as well.

Open eyes, open mind, open heart

Perhaps the best response I can have to this kind of criticism is that old saying, “Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes.”  All of the observation, data collection, and analysis that is required by a scientific approach to working with dogs does something more than simply facilitate the training.  It does something far more important.  It puts you in touch with the dog.  So as I am observing whether or not my girl is performing the behaviour to my criteria or not, I am also watching her to see frustration, understanding, creativity, or any of a range of possible emotions that can occur in a training session.

You have to be a keen observer to make this kind of science-based training work.  You have to see what’s really there.  You don’t have the luxury of jumping to conclusions or taking short cuts. That leads to inaccurate conclusions and results that can be difficult to understand.  But if I want to truly see what is in front of me, I also need to be willing to admit that I might be wrong about something.  I need to keep an open mind and not try to force what I have observed into a preferred explanation or an outcome that I am hoping for.  Sometimes that means having to say, “I don’t know” and going back to do some research to find a better answer.  For me, it isn’t about just getting a result.  It’s about understanding my dog and her behaviour.  Science allows me to test my own preconceived ideas and get beyond what I think I know to find what is really happening with my dog.

I have to see what is happening with my dog and accept it.  I have to make every effort to challenge my conclusions to truly understand what I am seeing and deal with it on its own terms instead of my own.  Acceptance and understanding.  I offer you these two quotations:

“The greatest gift you can give to others is the gift of unconditional love and acceptance” – Brian Tracy

“What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences other than we do…?” -Friedrich Nietzsche

Evidence of love

Anyone who has experienced heartbreak has known love.  Nothing in my life with dogs has shown me this more than this past year with Tiramisu.  For eight years we had worked and trained together in dog agility.  She loved the game.  Her excitement and eagerness to play was apparent to anyone who saw her out on an agility course.  And then suddenly one day the light left her eyes in the middle of a course.  With ears down, she trotted warily toward the exit.  With only a handful of qualifying runs needed for her second agility championship, she told me everything was definitely NOT okay.

I could have brushed this off.  I could have made excuses and pushed to get that second championship and then retire her.  I could have just decided she was “being a brat” and was trying to get her way.  But I knew better than that.  I knew what I saw in her.  I knew because I had spent the past 8 years watching her closely.  And because of what I saw in her, my heart broke.

Tiramisu had developed a low thyroid condition that was causing her both physical and emotional discomfort.  I could see her fear, her uncertainty, and her discomfort in her eyes, her movement, even they way she held her body.  We took her to a veterinarian, did some tests, and got her on the appropriate medications. She is back to her old self, bright eyed and as eager as ever to play agility and enjoy her life.  Without all of that “science stuff” I used in training her, I might never have had the eyes to see or the understanding to know what to do for her.

Do scientists love their dogs too?  Yes.  Perhaps more than you can imagine.  Because we see things that other dog trainers and owners might not see.  Science says we must accept each dog as the individual they are and work with them in a way that best suits them.  Because of our acceptance, we come to understand the dog and what they know so that we can continue to work with them and train them.  And because we understand them and accept them, we have a love for them that might not be readily apparent in the way we talk about and work with our dogs.

As I curl up in bed with Tiramisu each night, that warm lick I get from her as she rests on my pillow means more to me than words can describe.   I understand what it means.  It’s not just a sign of affection.  There are 9 years of a life shared in that lick.  Nine years of joy, frustration, excitement, and quiet times together.  It is a love as deep and true as any I have known.  

Science and the love of a dog.  Who would have thunk it, eh?

Until next time, have fun with your dog.

Be sure to check out our Canine Nation ebooks in the Canine Nation store and join our conversation on Facebook in the Canine Nation Forum!

The first Canine Nation ebooks are now available –
“Dogs: As They Are” & “Teaching Dogs: Effective Learning”

In the Canine Nation Store!!!

Photo credits –

Science – Eric Brad/public domain
Robot Dog- Stephanie Booth 2007 From Flickr
Tiramisu- Petra Wingate 2010

Recent Eric Brad CPDT-KA Articles:

• The Dog That Changed My Life
• Keeping Your Dog Informed
• Teaching Your Dog to Not-Behave
• The Simple Complexity of Dog Training
• What The Dog Wants