Hacker News Reader

Agreed about bored dogs having the worst behaviour, and the rest of your comment is spot on, but I'd like to correct a common but incorrect belief that you bring up:

> It requires you to act like the alpha dog (which is a very awkward feeling to most people) in order to maintain the behaviors you want.

The "alpha-dog" theory has been totally disproved by dog behaviourists. It was an extrapolation from a single case study in the 1930s, of captive wolves. It has since been debunked, and is not even applicable to wolves, never mind domestic dogs.

All the dog training which is based on this (such as Cesar Milan's submission-based training) holds no merit, and is far more likely to be detrimental than positive, as it relies on terrifying the dog. Note that this was only debunked in 2000, so a huge amount of dog training and research needs to be revised as a result.

Much more detail here: http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha...

the page you links to cites one solo "debunking" study which was done by a guy named Dave Mech, who links to occupy wall street and likes "evolutionary biology and social justice": http://www.davemech.com/

people's personal views often influence research

You make him sound like a fringe lunatic. After reading your comment I pictured a young hipster writing pseudo-science to suit his political agenda.

In actual fact, his "solo debunking study" is one of a very long academic career of studying wolves and other prey. Quoting from http://www.davemech.org/: "L. David Mech (pronounced "Meech") is a Senior Scientist with the Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, and Ecology, Evolution and Behavior at the University of Minnesota. He has studied wolves and their prey since 1958, as well as several other species of wildlife."

He has a massive list of peer-reviewed publications, going back 50 years (http://www.davemech.org/publications.html), and looks exactly like every serious academic researcher I've come across.

Yet he links to OWS from his personal site and all of a sudden that's all invalidated?

frans de waal is another along the same lines.

check out the two sides of evolutionary psychology - the bonobos and the chimpanezee. the bonobos are the feminine, nice, friendly monkeys that are dying out. the chimpanzees are warlike and aggressive and are quite strong. both are closely related to humans.

researchers will generally take one side or another depending on whether their views skew more to the left or the right

I didn't realize that 'acting like the alpha dog' meant dominance theory but I can see how that could mean that. I'm not recommending people treat their dog like a wolf that they constantly have to dominate. I don't know much about Cesar Milan's theory. Like many dog-training theories, I'm sure it's a mixed bag.

My point is that when you give a dog a command, you have to give it with authority and sound convincing. When you leave your house and you feel guilty leaving your dog alone, you have to act like it's normal so you don't transfer your anxiety to him. When your dog misbehaves, you can't plead with him to stop like he's a little person who can reason about it.

This does not feel natural for a many dog owners. If you're type of person who isn't very self-aware or good at controlling your behavior, I'd recommend getting the dumbest/laziest dog you can find. :-)

> you have to give it with authority and sound convincing.

I don't think there's anything special you have to do here. Dogs respond to rewards, not authority. To make a dog respond to your commands, he has to be trained to do so, using some kind of reward. Say "sit", he does the right thing, he gets a treat (or a hug, or to play, or whatever). Do this 50 times, and you have a dog that responds to the "sit" command.

No amount of gravitas in your voice is going to help him "sit" if he hasnt been trained.

A self deprecating text editing experiment:

I have long thought that it's often the most intelligent nerds that have the worst behavior problems. Although, it's sometimes the fault of a nerd who thinks they can reason with non-nerds using pure logic when they really need to learn more about how normal people think and behave. It's sometimes the fault of a normal who thinks they can reason with nerds using social-logic when they really need to learn more about how nerds think and behave.

Being an intelligent nerd is like signing up for acting classes. People will watch your every move and play you like a chump if you do the wrong thing. Some think it requires you to act like the alpha nerd in order to maintain the behaviors you want (which is a very awkward feeling to most people.) This means understanding how nerds see reward, punishment, encouragement, etc… or at least learning what to do when you see behavior that you don't like and understanding how your own behavior affects the nerd.

I wouldn't say that less intelligent individuals don't have issues, but a super-smart nerd can easily get bored and turn that creative energy into a destructive streak.

Wait ... you said "dog", not "four-year-old", right?