New Post

The Canine Comparison Fallacy

 Comparisons create powerful arguments; that is no secret. As a dog trainer, I rely on comparisons and examples to get my point across to my client while I’m teaching. Whether it’s anatomy, genetics, justice, or something else, drawing parallels between dogs, humans, and wolves never fails to turn a light on in someone’s brain. Without question, comparisons serve a vital role in teaching by evoking the brain’s ability to empathize and assimilate information in order to make sense of a concept. Such a powerful tool should be used with responsibility, right? After all, a powerful argument can arise when you compare and contrast fireworks to bombs, but if a certain agenda is woven into that comparison, the result could be devastating. Comparisons are useful, but for the canine industry, they can become toxic. Many people who work in the canine industry compare dogs to humans, wolves, or other animals in an attempt to make a point that fits their own narrative, and the consequences are misinformation and misplaced emotions that end up doing more harm than good. 

 The most impactful arguments focus on comparing dogs to humans, and is therefore one of the most dangerous narratives. Dog trainers in particular use the power of empathy, or putting oneself in another’s shoes, to help humans understand concepts quickly. Anthropomorphism, or giving human qualities to animals, plays a huge role in misplaced emotions. However, comparing the brain of an animal to the brain of a human is a huge stretch and it must be used wisely in teaching. What happens when the narrative is used to make a deep, defining characterization about dogs as a species instead of a momentary, superficial teaching aid for the sake of efficiency? Examples of this, respectively, look like: “how would you feel if you were starving and someone withheld your food,” versus “would you rather have chocolate cake or nothing at all?” The first incorporates serious moral conflicts like hunger, betrayal, injustice, and so on while the second implies a simple, shallow game of would you rather. At a glance, this doesn’t seem like a bad tactic, but up-close, it can lead to dangerous misinformation about what is truly best for a dog’s health--not to mention public safety. The issue here is that some canine professionals use these dramatic and complex comparisons with human behavior to elicit emotional responses from people while disregarding the contrast. Within the span of two minutes, I have heard trainers say “would you treat your child that way,” and then “dog brains are entirely different from a human’s.” That is manipulating the narrative to fit your own agenda.

 Similarly, another toxic argument that some canine pros use much too casually is comparing dogs to their genetic ancestors--the wolf. Statements such as “dogs are pack animals” or the idea that dogs develop a hierarchical dominance structure based on alphas and betas are proven to be oversimplifications or generalizations. In fact, the original research about hierarchical structures in wolf packs has since been disclaimed by David Mech himself, the very man who initially coined the phrase “alpha wolf.” This change in understanding was brought on by flaws in the research, such as the studied wolves being unrelated and raised in captivity, and therefore did not provide an accurate depiction of how wolves naturally interact in the wild. Now, even though the connotation of the word “dominance” is ruined forever by this misunderstanding, we understand that dominance is way more complex than just ego, leaning more towards parental leadership than anything else. The main reason why irresponsible comparisons between dogs and wolves (or other animals) can be harmful is that the information is typically wrong. This leads to classic misinformation, meaning the general public will develop ideas about dogs that are simply incorrect. Like the human comparison, this argument perpetuates an inaccurate narrative about dogs, instead of highlighting the specific facts--not only as a species, but as individual creatures with unique personalities. 

 The unfortunate truth is, there is so much conflicting research and biased narratives about dogs that the science becomes inconclusive. A common theme in the canine industry seems to be the difference between the theoretical and practical implications of dog behavior. Oftentimes, the behaviorists who study dogs from a distance and the dog trainers that personally interact with the dogs, like me, have drastically different opinions about how a dog’s mind works. For example, when it comes to behavior modification--or changing maladaptive behaviors in dogs such as aggression or anxiety--some canine pros can give you a rudimentary treatment plan that should work in theory, but others will tell you it is much different in practice. Many reward based trainers develop great plans based on a more humane, emotional approach to dog training, but somehow the collective results end up underwhelming. This is not because this training style doesn’t work at all, but because it only works for some. Every dog and situation is different, and reward based methods that thrive on comparing dogs to humans are not a one-size-fits-all solution. On the flip slide, comparisons that discount emotions altogether in favor of a detached, animalistic approach to dog training tends to be unsuccessful as well. While dog training methodology is a complex debate that can fill books by itself, the underlying issue is how canine professionals use one-sided arguments to sway people who know nothing about dog behavior into thinking that dog training is black and white.

Ultimately, using comparisons while neglecting the contrast in order to fit a training agenda and sway the ignorant does a disservice to the loyal, intelligent, and sweet beings we call dogs. In many ways, dogs are similar to humans and wolves, but the fact is they are neither, and they deserve to be treated as such. Alongside the genetics that wolves contribute, it is important to remember that dogs have spent thousands of years being domesticated by humans and therefore retain a special quality that no other wild animals can relate to. Alternatively, alongside their close relationships with humans, it’s important to remember that dogs are not children and they will always have animal instincts. Humans must remember to find a balance between these two narratives and avoid taking comparisons to an extreme. Remember: all dogs can and will bite. Dogs have killed people, time and time again, because someone either treated them too much like a human or not enough. Abuse and anthropomorphism--giving human qualities to animals--are both to blame for the horrors associated with the canine world.