Nonlinear Dogs
 |
 |
 |
The "dominance hierarchy theory" is badly in need of replacing. Schenkel protested the instant the theory was
used to explain the social organization of wolves, but for some reason everyone ignored him. It didn't take
long before the same myth was being used to tell us how domestic dogs organize their groups. We can't
even call this bad science because, in fact, it wasn't science at all.
We are proud to post a paper published by the Carriage House Foundation in 2003, in which the author
presents a different model of domestic canine social organization:
The Social Organization of the Domestic Dog; A Longitudinal Study of Domestic Canine Behavior and the
Ontogeny of Domestic Canine Social Systems, by Alexandra Semyonova (2003)
The article is a very compact account of a journey into the life of dogs. We will be expanding on many of the
questions it raises as work on our site progresses. We will also be adding pages that will help un-crunch the
paper as it were, to make its content easily understandable to people from all fields and all walks of life.
In the meantime, you can take a look at parts of the book we will be publishing in the fall of 2008. This book is
intended for both beginners and "experts." It takes us through many of the beliefs we have about dogs,
explaining what domestic dogs really are and where their behavior really comes from. It is a fun, easy read
that will change the way you see your dog and greatly improve your relationship with him or her.
This site is still expanding, so keep an eye on us once in awhile. Some of the problems we will be
addressing: Scientists have been studying the wrong animal, and they've been doing it the wrong way. They
study dogs under artificial conditions. They ignore everything they can't count. This means they have failed to
ask some of the most important questions. They have also tended to forget that they are, themselves,
animals whose behavior we need to study. Anthropologists and historians of science are well aware of this,
but it looks like scientists aren't reading their work, or are reading too little of it. This may be because
interdisciplinary study is rare in general. So scientists bowl along unaware (for example) of how their own
psychology is affecting not only which questions they ask, but also what they perceive while they gather data.
This had led to an unjustified belief that they are objective. In fact, a lot of what they tell us about dogs is a
projection of human existential paradigms.
Our intention is to correct a number of the myths about dogs, ask some important questions, get everyone
thinking and alert the general public to remain critical and skeptical.
What is a dog?
Contact us
used to explain the social organization of wolves, but for some reason everyone ignored him. It didn't take
long before the same myth was being used to tell us how domestic dogs organize their groups. We can't
even call this bad science because, in fact, it wasn't science at all.
We are proud to post a paper published by the Carriage House Foundation in 2003, in which the author
presents a different model of domestic canine social organization:
The Social Organization of the Domestic Dog; A Longitudinal Study of Domestic Canine Behavior and the
Ontogeny of Domestic Canine Social Systems, by Alexandra Semyonova (2003)
The article is a very compact account of a journey into the life of dogs. We will be expanding on many of the
questions it raises as work on our site progresses. We will also be adding pages that will help un-crunch the
paper as it were, to make its content easily understandable to people from all fields and all walks of life.
In the meantime, you can take a look at parts of the book we will be publishing in the fall of 2008. This book is
intended for both beginners and "experts." It takes us through many of the beliefs we have about dogs,
explaining what domestic dogs really are and where their behavior really comes from. It is a fun, easy read
that will change the way you see your dog and greatly improve your relationship with him or her.
This site is still expanding, so keep an eye on us once in awhile. Some of the problems we will be
addressing: Scientists have been studying the wrong animal, and they've been doing it the wrong way. They
study dogs under artificial conditions. They ignore everything they can't count. This means they have failed to
ask some of the most important questions. They have also tended to forget that they are, themselves,
animals whose behavior we need to study. Anthropologists and historians of science are well aware of this,
but it looks like scientists aren't reading their work, or are reading too little of it. This may be because
interdisciplinary study is rare in general. So scientists bowl along unaware (for example) of how their own
psychology is affecting not only which questions they ask, but also what they perceive while they gather data.
This had led to an unjustified belief that they are objective. In fact, a lot of what they tell us about dogs is a
projection of human existential paradigms.
Our intention is to correct a number of the myths about dogs, ask some important questions, get everyone
thinking and alert the general public to remain critical and skeptical.
What is a dog?
Contact us