"CAMBRIDGE - Studying a species known to chase its own tail may
seem an unlikely way to better understand the human mind. But
scientists at Harvard University's new Canine Cognition Lab hope
to gain insight into more than the psychology of dogs from
visiting pet pooches..."

Diddy, I'd love to see what would happen if they evaluated Tuck!

Re that guilty look dogs give you when scolded:

"Alexandra Horowitz, who teaches psychology and animal behavior
at Barnard College in New York, has probed the guilty look that
dogs give, flattening their ears back and ducking their heads.

"In work recently accepted for publication in the journal
Behavioural Processes, Horowitz had owners show their dog a
desirable treat and then tell the dog not to eat it. They would
leave the room and the experimenter would either give the dog the
treat or take it away. When the owners returned, some dogs were
scolded, even if they had not disobeyed.

"Researchers found that dogs looked most guilty when they were
scolded, especially when they did not eat the treat. That
suggests dogs are responding to a social cue. Even though we may
associate a certain look with the way we feel, teasing out dogs'
actual thoughts and feelings requires careful experimentation. "

http://www.psycport.com/showArticle....l&provider=New
York Times Syndicate
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dg5xul

FurPaw
--
Don't believe everything that you think.

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw spoke these words of wisdom in
:

Horowitz had owners show their dog a
desirable treat and then tell the dog not to eat it. They would
leave the room and the experimenter would either give the dog the
treat or take it away. When the owners returned, some dogs were
scolded, even if they had not disobeyed.

I could NOT do this to Tuck. We have a contract. To do this to Tuck would
cut him so deep, it might profoundly damage our relationship.

When the new ESS puppy does something, and I say , "NO"
Tuck takes it personally and tries to crawl in my lap. (New puppies tend to
take a lot of direction. Unfortunately, Tuck takes seriously, that which
the new puppy ignores)

Tuck is torn with this puppy. He knows he may not show aggression to any
animal and this puppy takes his things, and Tuck MUST say NO, but he will
not. The puppy is running all over him and his good nature. This causes
much internal stress in Tuck. Yet Tuck will not defend himself and his
things.


http://www.psycport.com/showArticle...._04_14_medic_3
445-0006-pat_nytimes.xml&provider=New York Times Syndicate
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dg5xul

FurPaw

diddy none wrote in :

...The puppy is running all over him and his good nature.
This causes much internal stress in Tuck. Yet Tuck will not defend
himself and his things.

You need to teach Tuck that it's okay to rat the puppy out to a Higher
Authority (you).

--
Mary H. and the restored Ames National Zoo:
The Right Reverand Sir Edgar "Lucky" Pan-Waffles;
U-CD ANZ Babylon Ranger, CD, RE; ANZ Pas de Duke, RN; and rotund Rhia

"diddy" none wrote in message

Tuck is torn with this puppy. He knows he may not show aggression to any
animal and this puppy takes his things, and Tuck MUST say NO, but he will
not. The puppy is running all over him and his good nature. This causes
much internal stress in Tuck. Yet Tuck will not defend himself and his
things.

We've experienced this twice in our household. The first time was when Urger
arrived as a 3-month-old pup and Kanyak was about 10 years old. (Both intact
males.) For close to a year Kanyak doted on Urger to a degree that was
astonishing. But then Urger became a teen-ager and though he was never
agressive towards Kanyak, the reverse was definitely not true.

The second instance was when Balim (female English cocker spaniel) arrived
about a year after Kanyak died of old age. She was less than three months
old and this time it was Urger's turn to play "doting daddy". Balim could
take bones right out of Urger's mouth. She probably would still be doing it
if we let her.

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

In article ,
"Opinicus" wrote:

Balim could
take bones right out of Urger's mouth. She probably would still be doing it
if we let her.

Rudy and Lucy both let Marcie get away with anything, She's 18 months
old now and has not lost her puppy license.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:28:57 -0400, Janet Boss
wrote:

In article ,
"Opinicus" wrote:

Balim could
take bones right out of Urger's mouth. She probably would still be doing it
if we let her.

Rudy and Lucy both let Marcie get away with anything, She's 18 months
old now and has not lost her puppy license.

Same here with Teddy - he's 21 months old and the license is still
good.

"Janet Boss" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Opinicus" wrote:

Balim could
take bones right out of Urger's mouth. She probably would still be doing
it
if we let her.

Rudy and Lucy both let Marcie get away with anything, She's 18 months
old now and has not lost her puppy license.

I don't think Muttley recognizes that "puppy license" stuff. We attended an
introductory "class" at Petco last night, which also included a woman with
a large young Dobe wearing a prong collar, and another woman with a young
male black Lab (uh-oh), who she said was about 9 months old and neutered,
so I need not worry. But I did.

The dog-to-dog greetings went well enough, although I thought I saw the Lab
take a quick snap at Muttley's face, causing him to back off. They probably
should not have been face-to-face anyway, and I/we did not allow that for
any longer than a few seconds. Yet I felt some tension, and some of that
may have been mine, traveling down the leash to Muttley, who was on an
anti-pull harness.

After the instructor arrived, she alternated her attention to each dog and
owner, and spent a good bit of time getting to know Muttley and building
his trust and attention with treats, soon accompanied by use of the
clicker. She got him to associate the clicker with good things (treats) as
well as good behavior.

Later, Muttley went toward the woman and her black Lab, and she gave
Muttley a treat. Her Lab did not seem to approve, and gave a quick show of
teeth until he was also given a treat. That may not have been wise, as it
may have reinforced the behavior, but at least Muttley did not react, and I
pulled him back before anything could escalate.

I think the other dogs, being basically puppies after all, really wanted to
play. Muttley is not so much playful, and he may have taken their
attentions as serious threats and he might have taken it to a level where
someone may have gotten hurt. Muttley has shown that he can play roughly
with another large dog, without drawing blood, as evidenced by his
interactions with Lucky. But in the presence of two other strange dogs over
whom I did not have control, it might have been not so good to allow that
play.

http://www.smart.net/~pstech/Muttley...ht_9090031.JPG

This may not relate to the OP's information about a dog's "guilty
expression". I found it interesting that the dog who was punished unfairly
showed even more of this expression, which indicates it might signify a sad
feeling of having a bond of trust violated.

Paul and Muttley

diddy wrote:
FurPaw spoke these words of wisdom in
:

Horowitz had owners show their dog a
desirable treat and then tell the dog not to eat it. They would
leave the room and the experimenter would either give the dog the
treat or take it away. When the owners returned, some dogs were
scolded, even if they had not disobeyed.

I could NOT do this to Tuck. We have a contract. To do this to Tuck would
cut him so deep, it might profoundly damage our relationship.

No, you could not. I was thinking more of you showing them a
specimen of a dog with extraordinary cognitive capabilities. I
had selected those paragraphs because of the parallel discussion
of whether a dog knows what he's being scolded for (seemingly not).

When the new ESS puppy does something, and I say , "NO"
Tuck takes it personally and tries to crawl in my lap. (New puppies tend to
take a lot of direction. Unfortunately, Tuck takes seriously, that which
the new puppy ignores)

When we had four, all of them reacted to a "NO." For that
reason, we couldn't use a "no" to figure out who the culprit was!

Tuck is torn with this puppy. He knows he may not show aggression to any
animal and this puppy takes his things, and Tuck MUST say NO, but he will
not. The puppy is running all over him and his good nature. This causes
much internal stress in Tuck. Yet Tuck will not defend himself and his
things.

Sounds like the pup (what's his name?) has a pretty powerful
puppy license, as far as Tuck is concerned!

FurPaw

--
Don't believe everything that you think.

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw spoke these words of wisdom in
:

diddy wrote:
FurPaw spoke these words of wisdom in
:

Horowitz had owners show their dog a
desirable treat and then tell the dog not to eat it. They would
leave the room and the experimenter would either give the dog the
treat or take it away. When the owners returned, some dogs were
scolded, even if they had not disobeyed.

I could NOT do this to Tuck. We have a contract. To do this to Tuck
would cut him so deep, it might profoundly damage our relationship.

No, you could not. I was thinking more of you showing them a
specimen of a dog with extraordinary cognitive capabilities. I
had selected those paragraphs because of the parallel discussion
of whether a dog knows what he's being scolded for (seemingly not).

When the new ESS puppy does something, and I say , "NO"
Tuck takes it personally and tries to crawl in my lap. (New puppies
tend to take a lot of direction. Unfortunately, Tuck takes seriously,
that which the new puppy ignores)

When we had four, all of them reacted to a "NO." For that
reason, we couldn't use a "no" to figure out who the culprit was!

Tuck is torn with this puppy. He knows he may not show aggression to
any animal and this puppy takes his things, and Tuck MUST say NO, but
he will not. The puppy is running all over him and his good nature.
This causes much internal stress in Tuck. Yet Tuck will not defend
himself and his things.

Sounds like the pup (what's his name?) has a pretty powerful
puppy license, as far as Tuck is concerned!

FurPaw

Tuck has adjusted. We had to step in and set limits, because Tuck will not.
Tuck is used in the reactive dog classes as the dog that will tolerate
anything. He may not react, and this pup is mild compared to the snarling
hateful dogs that Tuck is passive to.

Tuck and the pup (Chief) go out and PLAY! and Tuck rolls on him and sits on
him, or squashes him if he gets too rough.


Tuck has to be the most tolerant dog on earth, because the pup comes up and
takes his food right out of his mouth.

I saw all those individual thank yous regarding Oppie. That must have been
painful to do. I just can't imagine.

diddy none spoke these words of wisdom in
:


When we had four, all of them reacted to a "NO." For that
reason, we couldn't use a "no" to figure out who the culprit was!


Tuck does not have this ability either. Everytime we say NO to the puppy,
Tuck (who did nothing wrong) takes the emotional beating, while the puppy
goes blithely on his way.

So we can't use NO.