THIS JUST CAME UP ON MY FACEBOOK FEED AND I NEARLY SCREAMED, PEOPLE ACTUALLY COSPLAY GHOST TRICK THIS IS SO IMPORTANT
ON TOP OF THAT THEY COSPLAYED BEAUTY WHO HAS ONE OF THE MOST RIDICULOUS HAIR STYLES I HAVE EVER SEEN, JFC
(Cosplayer: CelticSakura; photo was posted on arda’s facebook)
Q:I'm sorry if this is annoying, don't feel like you should answer! I've heard a good way to train dogs is to mimic pack behaviour and hierachy- which includes nips and stuff (replicated by what could be seen as aggression) I was wondering why its bad?
No that’s okay it’s a very common misconception (and one that needs to die).
Firstly, dogs are not wolves. And dogs do not form cohesive packs like wolves do (and dominance-submission relationships are purely based on access to resources btw).
Dogs have diverged significantly from wolves in the last 15,000 years. Ancestral wolves evolved as hunters and now generally live in packs consisting most often of family members (Mech 2000).Pack members cooperate to hunt and to take care of offspring. In a given year, generally only the alpha male and alpha female mate, so that the resources of the entire pack can be focused on their one litter. Dogs, on the other hand, evolved as scavengers rather than hunters (Coppinger and Coppinger 2002). Those who were the least fearful, compared to their human-shy counterparts, were best able to survive off the trash and waste of humans and reproduce in this environment. Currently, free-roaming dogs live in small groups rather than cohesive packs, and in some cases spend much of their time alone (MacDonald and Carr 1995). They do not generally cooperate to hunt or to raise their offspring, and virtually all males and females have the opportunity to mate (Boitani et al. 1995)
So now that we’ve established that, let’s look at how dogs interact with each other. Dogs have specific behaviours called appeasement behaviours which are designed to diffuse conflict and ask for space. This is because getting into a fight by being overly aggressive is a really really dumb thing to do. Avoiding injury by diffusing conflict is an evolutionary survival mechanism.
Okay. So what has this to do with training?
Dogs don’t want to fight with us for ‘dominance’. Dogs are not interested in rank or hierarchy in the domestic environment. Dominance is about access to resources - you control your dog’s entire life. Their food, their water, their shelter, their happiness - technically you’re already the ‘dominant’ one. If you really want to look at it that way…
The thing is… Dogs know we’re not dogs. Dogs do not see us as dogs. We don’t have tails or ears to mimic their body language and postural positions. So why should we be pushing around, growling, pinning and being a downright bully to our dogs? They don’t see you as another dog. You’re only proving that you’re a scary, unpredictable bully.
When you apply dominance theory to dogs you insert this really horrible, harmful, egotistic mentality that you need to “be the boss” and you need to be aggressive. You also instantly assume that misbehaviour is an attempt to “outrank” you. Which is so so wrong oh god
Dogs are just trying to cope with the challenges in the domestic environment. Misbehaviour such as jumping up occurs because he/she has been unwittingly reinforced for it rather than taught how to sit when guests come through the door. Not because they’re trying to be dominant.
Aggression is often due to underlying anxiety and fear - when you assume it’s because your dog’s “challenging” you and that makes you want to fight it and show it who’s boss by using confrontational and aversive techniques like hitting, growling, alpha rolling ect. All you’re doing is making that underlying anxiety even worse. You’re giving the dog even more reason to react. And sure you might be able to suppress the growling, lunging and barking if you punish it enough. But you haven’t removed the anxiety, the root of the aggression is still there. That’s when you get learned helpless and shut-down. That’s when you get redirected aggression, when you get bites that occur “out of the blue” because the warning signs were punished and suppressed.
Confrontational techniques are aversive - they work by causing pain and fear. We’ve established that dogs do not see us as other dogs - so no, they do not see it as another dog “nipping” them. They see it as you causing them pain or discomfort, which is scary and confronting. And that might cause them to want to defend themselves against you. It is our responsibility to teach our dogs the right behaviours that will allow them to cope in the domestic environment. To reinforce when they get it right and, when they don’t, ask WHY. Work out the root of the problem, don’t just assume oh he’s trying to get the better of me. Because he’s not. Dogs are so much more mentally and cognitively advanced than people give them credit for. They’re not mindless machines out to achieve world domination. Every behaviour has a purpose - it’s your job to find out what caused it and, if it’s undesirable, how you can fix it.
Sorry that got a bit long and convoluted but I hope I got the point across well enough!
Here’s a couple of links for you that further debunk pack theory:
- Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs
- Comments on “Alpha” Dominance Theory
- De-Bunking the “Alpha Dog” Theory
- Forget About Being Alpha in Your Pack
- Misconceptions of the Mythical Alpha Do
- New Study Finds Popular “Alpha Dog” Training Techniques Can Cause More Harm than Good
- Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals
- Whatever Happened to the Term ALPHA Wolf?
A must read: http://vetmedlife.tumblr.com/tagged/dominance-theory
The Sa’wkele, The Ku-Ku, The Boqta, The Henin: How the Mongol Occupation of Europe Changed European Women’s Fashion Forever
One of the most immediately recognizable symbols of the European Middle Ages is the towering, often conical or cylindrical, women’s headdresses popular throughout Europe in the 15th century. To this day, the tall, often veil-decorated “Princess Hat” is immediately known even to American children as a sign of feminine stature, nobility, and elegance. Tiny, cheap versions of this hat are sold to women and little girls by the millions at Renaissance Faires, theme parks, costume shops, and carnivals all over the United States. They look something like this:
In just about every American imagination, nothing is more essentially European than the elaborate, gravity-defying tall headdress or henin worn by the noblest women of history. Indeed, the European Henin is synonymous to many Americans as a visual symbol of frail feminity, “Faire Maydens”, milky complexions and delicate white women who must be protected by knights, preferably in shining armor.
(psst. notice people of color in this miniature from Boccaccio’s The Fall of Princes: more on that in later posts)
But what if I told you the heads this historical hat truly belongs on are not only those of women of color, but unrivaled Warrior Queens who ruled a vast empire, went to war with infant sons strapped to their backs, and commanded armies of tens of thousands?
There is something that not even doctorate-holding Western Medievalists and Medieval Fashion experts will tell you, and may not even be aware of: The Henin did not spring out of nothingness to adorn the heads of European noblewomen.
The European Henin is modeled directly after the willow-withe and felt Boqta (Ku-Ku) of Mongolian Queens, which could reach over five to seven feet in height.
Mongolian women’s boqta also had a special role: because men and women’s clothing were more or less exactly the same in design, appearance and function, reflecting thousands of years of more or less equal rights between the genders, the women’s tall headdresses served to differentiate men and women from a distance.
Mongolian equestrian culture influenced fashion as well as martial technology: the headdresses would have been even more impressive on horseback. The higher a woman’s position, the taller, richer, and more elaborately decorated the headdress.
The important cultural role of the headdress is elaborated upon in Weatherford’s Secret History of the Mongol Queens, in this portion about the warrior Queen Maduhai as she prepares to lead her soldiers to war:
The chronicles all agree that she fixed her hair to accommodate her quiver. The hairstyle of noble married women of that era precluded fighting or any other manual endeavor. She removed the headdress of peace and put on her helmet for war.
By taking off her queenly headdress, known as the boqta, she removed virtually the only piece of clothing that separated a man from a woman. The boqta ranks as one of the most ostentatious headdresses of history, but it had been highly treasured by noble Mongol women since the founding of the empire.* The head structure of willow branches, covered with green felt, rose in a narrow column three to four feet high, gradually changing from a round base to a square top…The higher the rank, the more elaborate the boqta, and as a queen, Mandhui would have worn a highly elaborate one. A variety of decorative items such as peacock or mallard feathers adorned the top with a loose attachment that kept them upright but allowed them to flutter high above the woman’s head.
The contraption struck many foreign visitors as odd**, but the Mongol Empire had enjoyed such prestige that medieval women of Europe imitated it with the hennin, a large cone-shaped headdress that sat towards the back of the head rather than rising straight up from it as among the Mongols. With no good source of peacock feathers, European noblewomen generally substituted gauzy streamers flowing in the wind at the top.
* The ebook preview is truncated. I happen to own the book and have typed out the rest of the passage from hard copy.
** This statement reflects the bias of the author (Weatherford)-forgeign visitors found the boqta overwhelmingly impressive statements of wealth. For primary source description contemporaneous with women in the boqta (c. the 1200s), keep reading below the cut!
FULL HISTORY OF THE BOQTA, MORE PHOTOS AND LINKS BELOW THE CUT!
OMG WHAT MONGOL QUEENS KICKING ASS AND FASCINATING COSTUME HISTORY?!???
My inner goddess is ablaze with GLORY!!!
History is cool.
I’m constantly annoyed at how the Mongols are portrayed as being animalistic barbarians in western fiction or conceptions of history, and there’s usually nothing about how they actually were.
This is very, VERY interesting. I think RHA’s followers will enjoy this.