Man dog – wolf
The program is called “Dog Translator”, with Caesar Milan as the main tamer of scary dogs and their stupid naive owners. From the first cadre, I liked that Caesar considered the problems in human behavior to be the only cause of problems in the behavior of dogs. And although part of the educational work is directly related to bringing the dog into a more adequate state, the main emphasis is still placed on correcting the brains of their owners and explaining to them how they managed to break the toy.
The main message of the program is that an unbalanced owner will even quickly turn the most educated dog into an uncontrollable demon, and for an adequate person even the most insane dog will soon come to life, become calm and obedient. That is, the dog only reflects the state of the owner, and if it suddenly becomes uncontrollable or even aggressive, then the problem must be sought in the person and his behavior, and not in the dog, its breed, or education flaws.
In fact, a dog, like any other animal, with which we enter into close contact, acts as a clean mirror for us. In the eyes and behavior of the beast, we see a reflection of our own emotional state, and this is a great opportunity to explore our weak points.
The main problem faced by the owners of dogs, is that the pet gets out of control – does not listen, runs in the apartment, does not tolerate loneliness, drags behind the street, shows aggression to other dogs, or even snaps at the owner.
Proponents of the theory of dominance describe this problem from the standpoint of the distribution of ranks in the pack. If the dog feels that his owner is weak, then he gradually seizes power and takes over the leadership of all processes in the “pack.” And since human life is inaccessible to the understanding of dog’s brains, an inflated stress state is formed and fixed in the dog, which leads to completely inadequate behavior and, ultimately, to the manifestation of aggression. The decision, respectively, is seen in putting the dog in place, clearly explaining to her who is the boss.
There is another theory that claims that the domination model has long been outdated and is not applicable to the behavior of domestic dogs. But, describing the cause of all evils, they, in fact, say the same thing – with the wrong attitude, the dog becomes spoiled and unbalanced, and this leads to stress disobedience and aggression. The representatives of this school see the solution in returning to the task of establishing proper contact with the dog and establishing certain limits of behavior for it.
Often, the proponents of the second theory blame the proponents of the first theory for the fact that it is the person’s attempt to grossly dominate his dog that just leads to a loss of contact and anchoring her stress state. But the theory of domination is hardly to blame for this, rather, those fools who “learned the god to pray” are more to blame for and now they learn to pray to the same god of their pets.
In practice, both theories uphold the same principles: first, contact must be established with the dog, and secondly, the dog must calmly and clearly explain the rules of behavior in human society. If any of these conditions are not observed, the dog will turn into either a frightened depressed creature or an uncontrollable aggressive beast – depending on which way the stick will be bent.
And here we find ourselves in the field of human psychology that is familiar to us, and the question is: how is it that the principles, which are obvious in their nature, are violated? How is it that the establishment of rank relations turns into a cruel mockery of a dog when it is forced to obey under the threat of reprisal? How is it that an attempt to establish contact with a dog turns into indulging its whims with its subsequent transformation into a capricious intolerable bully?
The reason for everything is human idiocy, or rather, our narcissistic quality, because of which we naively assume that the world around us is organized in exactly the same way as we ourselves. Moreover, we consider here “ourselves” not as a deep-seated entity, which is truly consonant with the whole world, but as a superficial and neurotic, by definition, personality. The bottom line is that surrounding reality, we are persistently imposing our own and exclusively human neuroses.
Simply put, we humanize everything and everyone around. Moreover, we take not the abstract ideal person for a point of reference, but ourselves with all our individual and social cockroaches. And it happens completely unconsciously – we simply and without any doubt assume that everything around – both people and animals and even God – are arranged in the same way as we ourselves.