Drive theory pros/cons

[mark_sherry]

First of all, Judi, I agree with you. And Ramon, I agree with you too. How can this be, you might say? Well, it goes like this. In my opinion, I'd much rather see a Rottweiler herding cattle or pulling carts for a job that must be done. It seems that this is a couple of their primary functions from the earliest days.

However, I also believe that Rottweilers make excellent guard/property protection dogs, and that the Rottweiler would be an excellent choice for the type of dog you're looking for. I'm very disillusioned with the concept of drives. How many people out there have actually done any research into the development/history of drive theory? I think we all blindly accept the concept because it's been a tradition passed down from one generation to the next, mostly beginning in the early 20th Century when behavior in animals was attempted to be explained by animal biologists. However, most biologists in the 1940s began to question the validity of drive theory, but it had already become ingrained into the psyche of dog trainers throughout the world. Many of the world's leading biologists now see drive theory as flawed in many forms, and now look upon the "character" or the "individual personality" of the dog for answers as to what it will do. A few dog trainers have begun to use this approach, nixing the concept of prey, defense, and fight/flight drives in their training. With that said, studies have shown that dogs can be trained to perform tasks regardless of what their "drives" are and without seeking to build from prey to defense to fight/flight. Training begins with the puppy, and starts with the concept that the dog can be trained to do whatever it can physically handle. It may not be an easy task. Remember, with this theory, the relationship between the dog and success in training depends upon the personal character of the dog -- its individuality. A dog who is not interested in doing something, will not do it regardless. This is not the absence of a drive, but the lack of will or desire to perform a task. Some dogs with "seemingly low prey drive" are defined as such because they show little interest in retrieving, biting a sleeve, etc. Man made rules rule out the fact that the same dog may excel in other areas that are typically considered "prey drive," like chasing wild game, etc. This being said, I believe the right Rottweiler could be a great choice to perform the job you're looking for. Finding that right dog will be the challenge.

If anyone is interested in a good article on the debunking of drive theory, PM me. I'm just relaying what I believe based upon research that I've done. I have enlisted the assistance of a trainer who has discarded drive theory and uses a common sense approach to training dogs. He has produced some fine working dogs without focusing on the prey/defense/fight drive scheme.

[Storm]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
With that said, studies have shown that dogs can be trained to perform tasks regardless of what their "drives" are and without seeking to build from prey to defense to fight/flight. Training begins with the puppy, and starts with the concept that the dog can be trained to do whatever it can physically handle. It may not be an easy task. Remember, with this theory, the relationship between the dog and success in training depends upon the personal character of the dog -- its individuality. A dog who is not interested in doing something, will not do it regardless. This is not the absence of a drive, but the lack of will or desire to perform a task. Some dogs with "seemingly low prey drive" are defined as such because they show little interest in retrieving, biting a sleeve, etc. Man made rules rule out the fact that the same dog may excel in other areas that are typically considered "prey drive," like chasing wild game, etc

Drives is just another term for "individuality"! You can term it anyway you like it is a jargen which enables us to catogarize various dog related concepts. Individuality stops there, I am convinced in a discussion around individuality other terms will be incorporated to break down the dog's "description" even further.

Individuality is representative of drives within a dog, through training we can manipulate drives to a certain extent but without that specific drive /individuality in relation to nerve type etc. you can't create it out of thin air to do the task "regardless of what their "drives" are". Also bearing in mind that dogs block or drives become inhibited and incorrectly channelled and also that there is drive development aswell. If you understand the concepts of drive you are able to break the dog down into various areas and work in relation to this, ultimately seeking that balance. or making the dog proficient as a result of the balance. Not a favourable situation but where drive is not present, certain drive, it can be created but is is limited.

Lack of will, low drive levels? You can can term it any way but even dogs with lack of will and low/high activity (for the lack of a better word) are so different. Low drive on made made things is normally more of an issue with "man" in relation to the "exercise".
Term it any way you like, drive concepts are world reknown associated with dog greats throughout the world. If you prefer individuality, fine why try to convert the "dog drive world"?

My concept: THE DOG MUST LIVE IN DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p ;)

In addition to the initial post, I believe a Rottie with the correct "individuality" ;) will be excellent for the companionship that you require. However recognise that you must selectively choose where you will get a dog from, hope to get a "decent" specimen and also realise what a handful a dog like this can be especially if the drive is high! Control will be a factor so bear in mind training will be necessary, as always is.

[mark_sherry]

Storm,

One of the reasons I said I'd email some articles is because I didn't want to get into the "drive theory" in detail because it's not as simple as breaking down terms. Drive theory has been proven by biologists throughout the world as being flawed; yet, I do not care what anyone believes about the subject. This is my personal opinion, and it does have its strengths. Just because something is widely accepted doesn't mean that it is absolutely correct. How many "scientific" concepts have been debunked over the past few years? Things that were accepted 50 years ago are now known to not be true. For example, it was once widely held in the scientific community that criminals could be identified with large foreheads; therefore, they said, all people with large foreheads had a genetic disposition towards committing crimes. We now know that this isn't true, but even the Nazis continued to try to prove it less than 60 years ago. Going back further, it was once held that the world was flat, but we know that not to be true either. Recently, it was believed and taught that there was no life on another planet. Now scientists believe that there is based upon analysis of data taken from Mars where water has been found. Just because something is widely accepted and used for many years doesn't mean that it is correct. That being said, I know that my beliefs are on the fringe, but in 10 years, it may not be that far-fetched, especially with the current research being conducted. For the details, I welcome anyone to do their research. However, for proof, I will use my dog as an example. I guarantee that I can train my dog to do anything without conforming to drive theories. In my opinion, the concept of prey, defense and fight drives, and working your dogs in that order, is very flawed, and the methods for proving those drives in dogs are flawed as well. Take a look at the Dutch, for example. They are considered the best trainers of variable surface tracking in the world, and they are now going into a different direction with their training methods by throwing out the standard rules of drive training.

Listen, I'm not advocating that anyone follow what I believe, nor do I wish to start some kind of debate on the issue here. I'll be the first to admit that I'm just a student of the theory, but scientifically and academically, it makes more sense to me than does drive theories. Anyone wishing to debate me on this issue should hold back and not cut-and-paste themselves into an argument. I know what I believe, I've seen dogs trained outside of drive theory, and I've read articles and talked to enough trainers about it to know what I believe. If anything, I encourage everyone to read the articles and come up with your own conclusions. How more laid-back can I be about this topic?;)

[Muckdogs]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
I guarantee that I can train my dog to do anything without conforming to drive theories.

Ain't happening. Everything a dog does is based on "drive". Every action or reaction is drive based. And everything a dog does is an attempt to satisfy some sort of drive. Eat, sleep, crap, bark, bite, etc.. Which drive is in place is, however, individualistic and that is why different dogs react differently to the same stimulus. Take for example a dog that is locked in prey. Those dogs show object based reactions as the object is what is creating the stimulus. On the other hand, take a dog that is extremely fight drive based (not too many around, but a good example), that dog could give a darn what you are waving around, be it a sleeve or a cat, when released, that dog targets that which will satisfy its own personal drive, probably the man. Drive is nothing more than a response to stimulus, plain and simple and it seems to me that drive theory is just simply a way of breaking down the various responses to make it simpler to identify and work with.

[Storm]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
Drive theory has been proven by biologists throughout the world as being flawed; Just because something is widely accepted doesn't mean that it is absolutely correct. How many "scientific" concepts have been debunked over the past few years? Things that were accepted 50 years ago are now known to not be true. However, for proof, I will use my dog as an example. I guarantee that I can train my dog to do anything without conforming to drive theories. In my opinion, the concept of prey, defense and fight drives, and working your dogs in that order, is very flawed, and the methods for proving those drives in dogs are flawed as well. Take a look at the Dutch, for example. They are considered the best trainers of variable surface tracking in the world, and they are now going into a different direction with their training methods by throwing out the standard rules of drive training. I'm just a student of the theory, but scientifically and academically, it makes more sense to me than does drive theories. I know what I believe, I've seen dogs trained outside of drive theory.

Hey I am always "open ears" for new theories...............that being said. ;) Where is this info on biologists regarding drive theories, based on what and in relation to what animals? And the flaw thereof? I'd like to see this side to the theory. Sure many concepts evolve through time and many concepts remain and improve through time. Drive theory does not exclude all the other anatomy of the dog it actually includes and is closely related to the dog in every detail. So when I hear the word drive it is a variable in conjunction with many other attributes. I could call it "individuality" even as when I work a dog there are no fixed proportions! It is me and the dog, I see its demeneour, responses, strengths weaknesses etc. etc. etc. Get down to dogs and forget the theories, get into the dog's head and who cares about terminology? So can you get your dog to do ANYTHING? Interesting statement! I'll leave it there. Drives have no fixed order/proportions, on paper maybe but dogs are not all perfect specimens, drive is not black and white. Pleeeeease elaborate on the concept that "of prey, defense and fight drives, and working your dogs in that order, is very flawed, and the methods for proving those drives in dogs are flawed as well". Pleeease also give some info on the Dutch and their new theories into training? Also just interested as to what your involvement with dogs entails, are you a sports,PP,PD person?

[Mattweiser]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
A dog who is not interested in doing something, will not do it regardless. This is not the absence of a drive, but the lack of will or desire to perform a task.

since when??

ever heard of Bill Kohler?? Or are you being semantical in that until the force is applied, the dog doesn't want to do it??

[Muckdogs]

Originally posted by Mattweiser


Bill Kohler??

WOW, there's a blast from the past. I still have that orange covered book somewhere.

[Mattweiser]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
However, for proof, I will use my dog as an example. I guarantee that I can train my dog to do anything without conforming to drive theories.

This is completely subjective.. to validate your statement, it would require a heightened understanding of a "flawed" theory...

think about the rash of discussion that alone would entail...

Muck put it vey well... the only reason that "we" use drive theory, is that it Works , period....

it may be "flawed", as I have in fact been told by my trainer (who is a behaviorist by trade).. however comma he still uses the terminology and theory of drive, because it facilitates the training of canines....

and that is really the point is it not?

[mark_sherry]

We're getting well beyond the scope of what drive theory really means, and it is in this gray area that the weaknesses of drive theory really come to light. You all say that everything a dog does is a drive, right? So eating stool is a drive? Sleeping is a drive? Vomiting is a drive? Mating is a drive? It goes on and on and on. Drives are not genetic inclinations that we can put our hands on, manipulate, extrapolate, and permeate. They are not set in stone in the dog's psyche, and they certainly don't inhibite or accelerate a dog's ability to perform a task. Brian Amm is a world-renown K-9 trainer and instructor at the Internatinal Police K-9 Conference, the Nordic Police K-9 Training Center, and is President of the Canadian Canine Police Association. He is one of several examples of trainers who have nixed the concept of drives in his training, and he has also titled several ScH III dogs without using drive theory. Dr. Cannie Stark is a researcher who has spent a long time researching drive theory and has written many articles about the history or evolution of how biologists have dealt with it. You may understand drive theory and how it works for you, but unless you do a study of how drive theory has lost its importance with biologists, you would only know what's being taught by other dog people. The fact is, the group who initially began drive theory (biologists)is also the group that has recanted their long-held beliefs.

Brian Amm, for example, trains his dogs in muzzle aggression from the very start and doesn't do bite work until much later. This totally goes against the grain of drive theory because it by-passes prey and defense drives and goes right to the fight drive -- according to drive theorists, this isn't going to work, or it may have repercussions. According to Amm, who has trained many a reliable working dog in this manner, those presumptions are ludicrous, and several of these dogs have gone on to title ScH III and have competed at international ScH competitions. In addition, hundreds of police agencies world-wide use his dogs for working purposes, and they are very reliable workers and companions. So it already has happened hundreds of times over and will continue to happen.

I am currently out of town and will be for a few weeks. I'll be happy to send Dr. Stark's first article to anyone who wishes to read it. Among biologists, she receives rave reviews for her work. Among dog people who are afraid to change the old way, she is much less accepted. You can read it and take from it what you may. I'm just letting you know what I believe to be true from a scientific point of view.

Mark

[Storm]

How many of these biologists are representing their countries at world level, Bundesieger and scoring high nineties with all that "scientific" approach they should knock us old drive junkies's socks off! With all our FLAWED, drive driven dogs! ;) You confuse the concept of drive. What does the term drive represent for you? Individuality does exist within every dog. You IMO can call it what you want it doesn't change that inherent response/action etc. that can be evoked/channelled etc. So these guys don't like the term drive, what terminology do they give for their scientific studies and how does their approach differ with this different outlook? At the end of the day they take a dog and train in accordance with what that dog has to offer. What is the great scientific breakthrough here? Don't leave me in the dark.............

[Judi W]

Dang, I don't have the time (or inclination) for a didactic interchange, however I would like to enter a couple of things in this discussion. If we could loosely define drives as the manner in which a dog responds to external stimulus that might be a start.

I cannot accept that selective breeding applies only to physical or phenotype and not behaviors. I don't believe that selecting for behaviors that can be predicted within reasonable limits is a fraud.

Just as one can pound a nail with a wrench and load lumber in a sedan, it is certainly possible to train dogs against their inherited inclinations. It is however, much easier on all if the nail is pounded by a hammer and the lumber is loaded in a truck and the dog selected to point birds is one whose heritage and genetic background designs it for that purpose.

[Muckdogs]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
You all say that everything a dog does is a drive, right? So eating stool is a drive? Sleeping is a drive? Vomiting is a drive? Mating is a drive? It goes on and on and on. Drives are not genetic inclinations that we can put our hands on, manipulate, extrapolate, and permeate. They are not set in stone in the dog's psyche, and they certainly don't inhibite or accelerate a dog's ability to perform a task.

Yup, yup, nope-just an involuntary reflex like your eyes blinking, YUP, yup. Yes they are and we can. They are to an extent and yes they do.

Dogs are born with a predisposition to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways. These predispositions can and are manipulated to inhibit and accelerate the dog's ability.

One of the fundamental problems that I see in the reasoning you adopt is that you are compartmentalizing drives into only three categories, prey, defense and fight. Your research should tell you that there are many more drives than that that either stand alone, or are tangentially related to the three you state. Drive is just a word to describe response or desire. For instance, you cite mating with cynicism. I believe that you will find that mating is a legitimate stand alone drive. What about retreive drive? The drive to eat is related to prey drive, which can be categorized as hunt drive. These things are all genetic predispositions, no question about it. In order to eat, the dog ust have some level of hunt drive, utilizing prey drive instinct and predisposition to capture food. What about rank drive? That does not fall into any of the three, but certainly is a predisposition vis a vis the need to constantly challenge and dominate. Have you ever seen a rank dog? A true pain in the a$$, BUT, you can manipulate, extrapolate, and permeate the drive to make the dog a suitable companion. It can certainly be inhibited by either breaking the dog, killing it, or inducing it to act in another fashion, BUT AGAIN, the rank issue will ALWAYS be present because it is genetic. To ignore rank drive in certain dogs is a guaranteed one way trip to the hospital. Some dogs can be broken, some can't.

I think to waste time discounting that which helps us understand and better train dogs is silly. If you haven't already, I suggest actually working your dog so you can see firsthand how the dog moves in and out of drives and how they can be manipulated. It's easy, and although I don't suggest it, if you really want to see drive interchange(and run the risk of screwing up your dog), put her on the table and play in prey with her. Fun, Fun, Fun. Then, suddenly, have the helper put some heat on her, have her get a bite, drag her off the table and drive her. One of two things will happen, guaranteed. If she is a tough dog, she will flip into defense drive and take the heat and fight back. Or, more liekly, she will avoid. Either way you will see genetic responses to stimulus and as an added bonus, she will be royally screwed up. My point is that the dog is placed into a situation where genetic predisposition, ie.e drives, take over and responses happen. Drives are things that we must recognize and bea able to work within to properly work the dog. To ignore them is pointless because they are there whether we like them or not and some we do not like.

Once you are on the other end of the leash and encounter the frustrations the we all have, then tell me how drive theory is unimportant.

As far as the Amm guy goes, I don't know anything about him, but I suspect that he is like a lot of "trainers" where actions and theories don't necessarily translate to what goes on behind the scenes in trainig sessions. kinda like Dutch trained KNPV Mals that have never been subjected to compulsion. :D :D :D

Finally, I believe that a dogs drives can be muted or enhanced only to a certain degree. Enhancing is infinitely more difficult than capping. a level 5 dog will only be capable of a level 5 response on the best of days, but it is possible to cap the dog at a level 3 through training. What you may see with a 5 dog is a dog that normally works at a level 3, but it is possible to train an manipulate its drives to work at a level 5 fairly consistently.

[Mattweiser]

Originally posted by Muckdogs

As far as the Amm guy goes, I don't know anything about him, but I suspect that he is like a lot of "trainers" where actions and theories don't necessarily translate to what goes on behind the scenes in trainig sessions. kinda like Dutch trained KNPV Mals that have never been subjected to compulsion. :D :D :D

LOL.... what are you talking about? Dutch trainers never use force on their dogs!! :D :D :D (please note the heavy sarcasm!)

Muck, I think a better statement than to handle the dog, is to put a sleeve or a suit on (as I am sure you have), and really "see" the dog change drives.. it really is interesting ;) especially once you learn to understand what it is that affects the changes.... that is really where the training occurs ... in the mind of both dog and handler....

[Muckdogs]

Originally posted by Muckdogs


It's easy, and although I don't suggest it, if you really want to see drive interchange(and run the risk of screwing up your dog), put her on the table and play in prey with her. Fun, Fun, Fun. Then, suddenly, have the helper put some heat on her, have her get a bite, drag her off the table and drive her. One of two things will happen, guaranteed. If she is a tough dog, she will flip into defense drive and take the heat and fight back. Or, more liekly, she will avoid. Either way you will see genetic responses to stimulus and as an added bonus, she will be royally screwed up. My point is that the dog is placed into a situation where genetic predisposition, ie.e drives, take over and responses happen. Drives are things that we must recognize and bea able to work within to properly work the dog. To ignore them is pointless because they are there whether we like them or not and some we do not like.

I should have added after "royally screwed up" - which is why it is ridiculous to ignore the existence of drives or train around them. Why, because by ignoring the obvious, you can forever ruin a perfectly good dog and there is no way to train around that.

[mark_sherry]

You see, part of the problem with having any meaningful discussion here is that many of you are taking this personally. In addition, you are cutting and pasting excerpts and categorizing the spirit of my response without looking at the whole picture. Finally, none of you seem to be taking any time to do any research on the sources that I gave you. Before you hammer me for a belief that I stated was a belief (I'm not trying to force-feed this to anyone), do your research. Read Dr. Stark's articles and read Brian Amm's articles. Take a look at what they're doing. They are a few among a group of trainers who are not royally screwing up their dogs by jumping drives. In my opinion, the worst mistake anyone can make is seeing life through a tunnel, completely ignoring other ways of doing things. If anything, read the articles and store the information in order to debunk the theory. But at least you'll have reason to debunk it. Right now, many of you are firing off at the sleeve without really knowing what these biologists and trainers are advocating. I've only had one PM request for Dr. Stark's article, and that, to me, is the real shame of this whole matter. If you are a disciple of a belief-system without allowing yourself the freedom to study other belief systems, then you are following life blindly. And no, for these trainers, it's not just a matter of semantics and rhetorical classification. It's a method of training that completely ignores the system of drives that most ScH and sport trainers use. If you do the research, you'll find that the biologist who first came up with drive theory changed his opinion on the matter five years later. But by that time, the Germans had already adopted it as a standard training method, and then the world followed them. So drive theory is based upon a research study that was later "recalled" by its inventor. Sounds like a great foundation for a training program to me. While it may be sufficient, has it ever occured to anyone that there might be a better way of doing things? The Model T was sufficient for its time, but thank God some people kept open minds and tried to improve it. Where would we be without those people?