Customer Reviews:
 Dog Language: An Encyclopedia of Canine Behavior January 11, 2007
8 out of 10 found this review helpful
A welcome addition to over forty books in my canine reference library.I found "Dog Language" to be a handy reference in encyclopedic format listing terms and definitions used in the study of canine ethology. Especially useful is the list of canine behavior references located in the bibliography. The cross-reference line following each entry provides extra information. As a people trainer, I found it useful for defining the buzzwords of dogspeak needed to convey concepts to dog owners. Human to Canine communication is the key element to success in training. Dog Language helps to explain the messages the dog sends us. As an active trainer of working German Shepherd Dogs, I believe this book has enhanced my ability to "read" dogs.
 Dissatisfied January 10, 2007
0 out of 35 found this review helpful
I would love to review this book and am excited about the prospect of one day owning it, however I find it hard to rate this book as I HAVE STILL NOT RECEIVED IT!
 Mostly Old-Hat, Sorry... December 22, 2006
24 out of 35 found this review helpful
There is some good, well-thought out material in this book, but for the most part I have to say I was very disappointed. Granted, DOG LANGUAGE was originally published in the 1980s, but even though it's been heavily revised and updated since then the buyer should beware that a great deal of what passes for scientific information here is still badly outdated and way off the mark.
For one thing, Abrantes falls back on old myths too often, such as the outmoded idea that dogs exhibit dominant and submissive behaviors. It's clear to anyone with common sense that these behaviors would require a higher level of cognition than canines ever exhibit unless you include those that manifest as part of their supposed social "hierarchy". And the latest research shows that there really is no hierarchical structure in wolf packs. Dr. L. David Mech, of the University of Minnesota, doesn't use the word alpha anymore because, as he puts it, "It falsely implies a hierarchical system in which a wolf assumes a place in a linear pecking order." ("Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs"; L. David Mech, Canadian Journal of Zoology, May 2000) So there is no linear hierarchy in wolf packs. Yet DOG LANGUAGE still treats this old-hat idea as if it's a scientific given. Mech also says that dominance displays are rare in wild wolves (ibid). So how does dominance and submission still come to play such a large role in Abrantes' view of dog behavior?
Here's a passage from DOG LANGUAGE (in the section on aggression): " This [favoring cooperation while hunting over aggression] does not mean aggression disappears, rather it assumes other forms through ritualized behavior: greeting ceremonies, pacifying behavior and rank ordering."
The idea that the aggressive energy assumes other forms is right on the money. Abrantes is at least correct about that. Just watch a football game or spend an afternoon at the New York Stock Exchange--both are outlets for aggression. But in dogs, are these other, assumed forms really what Abrantes says they are?
1) Greeting Ceremonies: I wouldn't call them "ceremonies" (though that's the accepted term) but it's true that dogs and wolves DO exhibit predictable fixed action patterns when greeting one another, and those behaviors do tend to defuse aggression.
2) Pacifying Behavior: Here Abrantes's language implies that one dog is deliberately and intentionally trying to pacify the other. He may NOT mean to say that (the original text was written in Danish), but if he DOES, I'm sorry but I think the first dog is simply reacting to the body language, or even the pheromones, of the second.
For example, let's say there's tension between the two dogs. (Why else would one dog need to be pacified?) Stress would create a burst of adrenaline. That would create changes in the second dog's blood chemistry, which would in turn create subtle changes in his overall scent. Those changes would activate receptors in olfactory cells in the first dog, cells that have the capacity to distinguish between the odor proteins of a relaxed, sociable dog and those of a tense, aggressive dog. This information would go to the DNA in his receptor cells and activate a sequence of regulatory DNA, which would turn on a part of the gene that says, "Be cautious around any dog who has that odor." So the first dog's "pacifying behavior" is nothing more than a simple reaction to an olfactory stimulus. This causes unconscious, non-deliberate changes in his behavior, body language, pheromones, etc. So the behavior is not an intentional attempt to pacify the other dog, or a form of communication, but an unconscious, genetically determined dance, a reflexive exchange of energy, based on the pack's own need for social harmony.
But (some might ask) couldn't the first dog simply have a desire to pacify the other? That wouldn't require intent, would it?
No, but it would require a knowledge of the other dog's internal state, which is what's called second order cognition. And all our first dog can be aware of--and that just barely--is his own mental state. Don't get me wrong. I don't think dogs are stupid. On the contrary, I think they have marvelous emotional intelligence and a capacity for pattern recognition that's truly astonishing. But one of the first rules for understanding behavior is that of parsimony: you shouldn't interpret an action as being caused by a higher psychological faculty, if it can be interpreted as being caused by a faculty which stands lower in the scale. And my interpretation is not only more parsimonious than Abrantes's, it also satisfactorily describes all aspects of the "pacifying" behavior.
3) Rank Ordering: So a dog's inhibited aggressive energy causes him to want to form a hierarchy? Interesting. And it sort of makes sense, particularly since we've all been taught that the hierarchy is about aggression and power struggles. The only problem is that we come up against the law of parsimony again. A hierarchical rank isn't concrete; it's symbolic, abstract, conceptual. Rank ordering would require the dog to be able to think in the abstract. And since he can't chase, bite, or pee on an abstraction, how can he possibly rank himself and the others in his group? He can't.
Besides, abstract, symbolic, and conceptual thinking aren't necessary for survival in canines, in fact those kinds of cognition would probably be detrimental. But establishing and maintaining pack harmony is a purely adaptive strategy. So it's doubtful that canines would divide themselves into ranks of alpha, beta, etc. It's more probable that they're each aligning their own aggressive energies with the needs of the pack as a whole (for purposes of hunting large prey and protecting their kill from scavengers). This would happen in a self-emergent fashion, and it would serve a very clear adaptive purpose. And it's these differences in individual predatory energies that are probably what's been misinterpreted by Abrantes as rank ordering.
And remember up top, where Abrantes says that aggression in social predators assumes three forms? He's described these forms (which to my way of thinking are a little iffy), but why hasn't he said anything about the prey drive being the primary outlet for that aggression? As someone who's worked with problem dogs for fifteen years, it's clear to me that the quickest way to cure social aggression is to give the aggressive dog an outlet for his predatory energy through biting games. (Tug-of-war, which was once thought to foster aggression, is actually one of the surest cures!) To me this is the most blatant gap in Abrantes's view of canine behavior--that the prey drive is the primary organizing principle in all canine behavior.
Abrantes (on body language): "If [the dog] is dominant ... it will make its body appear large and stiff."
Dogs have no capacity for self-reflection (recognizing themselves in a mirror, a scientific indicator of self-awareness). And if a dog doesn't know anything about his own appearance, how could he try to make himself look different to others, or even possibly know what he would look like to others if he did? This goes beyond second level, to third level cognition: "I'm aware of *my* physical appearance, I'm also aware of how my physical appearance affects the *other* dog's mental state, and on top of that I'm aware that *he's* aware of what this change in my physical appearance tells him about *my* mental state." That may be how humans think (sometimes), but it's pretty darn complicated for a dog!
Abrantes: "How obvious these signals are depends on rank [etc.]".
This is more hierarchical hooey. Packs form mainly as family units, and beyond that for cooperative predatory purposes, based on the need to hunt large prey, and the need to protect their kill from scavengers. There are no ranks or levels of social status in a wolf pack. That idea is based on de-bunked studies dating back to the 1930s and 40s, done on captive wolves. Given that Abrantes is usually a brilliant scholar, DOG LANGUAGE is, in my view, a major disappointment, especially since many trainers and behaviorists still rely on this material to give them insight into dog behavior.
Granted, I'm just a dog trainer and mystery novelist, not a world renowned ethologist, but it seems to me that we need new, up to date thinking from writers like Abrantes, not a re-hashing of old, tired mythologies based on projecting human levels of consciousness onto dogs, and crediting them with types of intelligence unwarranted by what we now know about comparative neuroanatomy, emergence theory, regulatory DNA, and what we can clearly see for ourselves in normal, everyday canine behavior.
Good Reference November 3, 2006
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
Good book on reading body language of dogs. Easy to read and understand, great reference.
... A good reference source ... November 17, 2004
45 out of 45 found this review helpful
Please place emphasis on the word "Encyclopaedia" as it appears in the title ...
Apart for the first 30 odd pages of introduction, where the author explains aggression & fear as perceived by dogs ... the rest of the book is arranged in alphabetical manner ...
The book covers a wide range of dog behaviours ranging from Abnormal Behaviour, Body Control, Classical Conditioning to Visual Communication and Xenophobia ... making the book a good reference source.
For example, under the title "Dominance & Submission" ... the author explains the role that dominance plays within a dog hierarchy, and how the "dominance - submission" relationship between dogs, is more of a learned behaviour based on experience, rather than just based on the physical appearance/size of the dogs.
The drawback with the format is that it makes for rather disjointed reading and is not quite a book to read from cover to cover ... and requires the reader to jump from topic to topic ...
Content-wise, the book provides reasonable information, very sufficient for the new or first time dog owner. The more experienced dog owner will probably want to look at books by Patricia McConnell, Clarence Pfaffenberger and/or Stanley Coren.
That said ... it remains a useful book to have in the library ...
4stars ...
|
