The Human Animal Whisperer
The most incredible demonstration of understanding and managing
behavior is currently featured on television. While Dr. Phil is good, Cesar
Millan walks on water. His programs, The Dog Whisperer, demonstrate an
uncanny control of aggressive behavior among dogs, an accomplishment that
appears like waving a magic wand. While they watch, his exhausted pet owners
are shocked into disbelief. The rest of the miracle is that suppressing
hostile, aggressive, and angry behavior is often established within a few
seconds or minutes by a total stranger.
In view of the perplexing
aggressive streak among humans, any serious minded student of human behavior
must ask why the same beliefs, methods, and techniques would not work equally
well with human animals. Some evidence suggests that they would, and they do,
the Human Animal Whisperer. What is the evidence?
One compelling argument is through observing the regularly hostile,
aggressive, and angry behavior in a six-year-old. This behavior is known to
occur when the parents are around, yet virtually disappears when they are gone.
This establishes the context and trigger for such behavior among
humans, the family herd. The parents are an integral and dynamic part of the problem.
One of Cesar’s classic approaches is to remove the dog from its
owners, and deal with the dog one on one. In the absence of the owners, the dog
does not know how to behave, as dominance has not been established.
Within seconds, Cesar establishes himself as the pack leader, and the
misbehaving dog recognizes this as part of a herd instinct. His
aggressive behavior immediately disappears, and a more docile, submissive dog
emerges as if by magic.
It is at this precise point that a herd of parents will disagree with
this premise. Children are not animals, and controlling others should not be
the object of raising humans? To the contrary, these knee-jerk emotional
reactions quickly disappear as soon as angry behavior in a child, or a dog, is
suppressed and a more accessible and loving nature is allowed to come to the
surface. As with dogs, it may only be possible to socialize a small child when
angry responses are completely suppressed.
When emotions
are allowed to be the primary determinants of behavior the instincts are in
charge. Anger is rarely a reasoned reaction, but is a raw response based upon
instincts that may be no different in humans than they are in animals.
Cesar states, and most dog owners agree, that their dogs take charge of the
family, and remain in charge in many respects within selected circumstances.
Six-year-olds should rarely be in charge of any herd of
human animals.
Cesar makes
full use of a leash, which is frowned upon by most parents. Given human's knack for verbal understanding, it is
possible to put both a collar and a leash on angry folks to good effect. The following three examples illustrate such an
approach with thinking, reasoning humans: two graduate students and one very
stubborn six-year-old.
Case Study #1: Establishing Dominance
As the administrator and primary instructor for a graduate work-study program, I
routinely assembled groups of ten to twenty students for an intensive training
experience, usually away from their homes. They spent an entire week together
in a heavy agenda that included morning, afternoon, and occasional evening
classes. Each of the day classes was three hours in length with a single
break. With such intensive togetherness, the individuals come to know each
other like brothers and sisters.
During the very first session of one group, class assembled for
their get acquainted and orientation routine at 9:00am. After the introductions
I moved immediately into the meat of the program. From that time on until the
first break at 10:30, almost every subject I introduced was verbally responded
to by one assertive student. He would either agree by verbal assent (amen
corner), or he would express some contrary perception. As the opening session
wore on, it became clear to me that class could quickly lapse into a two-way
conversation between the instructor and one student, who wanted to share his
opinion at every opportunity. I sensed that his fellow students were becoming
uneasy, if not upset by this routine.
After the
break I structured the rest of the day by specifying a set of rules to be
followed explicitly. As this was the first day of class, and we had all
introduced ourselves, I expressed the need to get to know all the students in
the group. I added that each of the students should have a
chance to get acquainted with each other through interacting in class.
With that
introduction, I stated that after I had heard from one person in class, I would
write his or her name on the board. From that point on there would be no repeats from any individual until all their names were
on the board. Then I wrote the name of the dominating student on the board, as
everybody knew he had already received more than his share of class time. While
it was a good exercise in hearing from all the students, it also relieved the
tension that was created by a single student wrestling for dominance within a
graduate class.
The issue was actually dominance, and the struggle was between the
student and me. After I established these rules, the issue of dominance was
settled, and the student vying for status was controlled by the rules and his
peers, all of whom wished to participate openly in the proceedings. It was a
slick procedure, a mental leash that established me as the pack leader. By many
nods of approval, it was well accepted by the students in the class. Pack
dominance works for dogs and graduate students alike.
Case Study #2: Anger Management
In another group that had been meeting for several days, it became apparent that
one individual, a burly black male, was verging on agitated. I had no idea what was triggering his
conduct, mostly non-verbal fidgeting, but also personal withdrawal marked by a
tendency to avoid eye contact. After confirming to myself that I was not
projecting bad vibes, I called the student aside to find out what was going on.
He explained that I had used the term “boy” on several
occasions. He took offense at such word usage, indicating that in his
experience this was a seriously demeaning and prejudicial reference to adult
black males. I responded that for each of the references in class, the boy
involved was actually a child, a male child, and in no case was it ever a black
child. I explained further that my use of the terms boy and girl always refer
to children, rather than adults.
Because his reaction originated within his own cultural and racial
history, and because these perceptions did not resonate with any of the class
content, a system of signals was devised to communicate his personal perception
of anger. We agreed that when he sensed any further racial offenses, he would
discretely raise an index finger to communicate his reaction. If I
should observe what appeared to be agitated or angry behavior from him, I would
likewise raise an index finger to key my response to him. Bringing this
cultural awareness and inappropriateness to foreground allayed any additional
angry responses, and index fingers were never raised by either of us during the
subsequent weeks of class.
Once
leadership is established, Cesar often uses a noxious noise or a tap on the rear
to keep his charges on track. A simple gesture works equally well with
graduate students to keep them on track.
Case Study #3: Taming a Six-Year-Old
Identifying
the offensive behavior of a very bright, stubborn, manipulative, and frequently angry six year old is like recognizing an
elephant. As the youngest of three sons, he may have learned his manipulative
ways as a survival technique with two very assertive parents who can not agree
on child rearing techniques, and two big brothers. The origin of his conduct is
actually irrelevant. He is accomplished at using his emotions, primarily angry
responses, to establish dominance in the household and get his way.
When a
six-year-old boy, or dog, is in charge of a family of five, there is a ripple
effect throughout all members. Everybody seems to know what is going on,
but nobody is willing to admit that the six-year-old is the pack leader.
What responsible parent would make such an admission? The key to the
picture is parental disagreement over child rearing techniques. The father
is anxious to establish dominance over the pack. The mother is opposed to
the father establishing dominance, and believes that a gentler
approach with a six-year-old works better than discipline. In this regard the
mother is an enabler, and the recurring tantrums, created by a demanding young
man who wants his way, continue unabated.
The safest place to be in this situation is in Florida playing golf,
grandpa’s preferred briar patch. As expected, grandma has invited all three
boys to visit for an extended vacation in the summer. Cesar Millan would
cherish the opportunity, as the first requirement for establishing socially
acceptable, docile behavior, is to suppress the angry behavior. It works
beautifully in dogs, and requires only a few seconds. As the parents will not
be around during these visits, the stage is set for another miracle, taming a
six-year-old.
As a trial
run prior to this extended visit, we decide to take the three boys out for
breakfast. Grandpa says angry behavior is not genetic, but is a learned
strategy designed to test and maintain dominance. While dominance is not
an essential trait at the dinner table, a semblance of order and a whiff of
socially acceptable behavior should be practiced by all eaters.
Anticipating the
worst, grandpa corrals the three boys for a serious chat before leaving the house for breakfast. Around the dinner table the
three listen intently to grandpa’s mini-lecture. He identifies two events,
eating breakfast at Loukas Diner in a few minutes, and going to grandpa’s house
in a few weeks. They are both choices, grandpa says, but they are not free for
the taking. They both depend upon three little boys behaving like perfect
gentlemen on a regular basis. Arguing, fighting, and other angry behavior will
not be tolerated by grandpa during either of these events.
They are all given a free choice to participate, or stay at home,
for both events. It is really up to them. Fear of grandpa is punctuated at
this time by stating that while at the restaurant, or at grandpa’s house, only
one warning will be given for inappropriate behavior. Grandpa does not count to
three, but only to one, - one time. On the second occasion the individual is
returned to his home from Loukas Diner or from Florida.
With that, I asked all three if there were any questions, or if any
of them wanted to stay at home. With three appropriate answers, we all piled
into the car, and experienced a particularly peaceful breakfast at Loukas.
Grandpa’s mental leash was firmly attached to each of the boys, and there was no question about
the pack leader's rules when grandpa was in
charge.
I must admit that this verbal leash only works with little humans.
It is a miserable failure with all dogs, who, according to Cesar, don’t
understand a single word of what I just said.
Discussion
One widespread belief among humanists is that anger, an emotion,
demands expression. The belief continues that if its expression is denied, it
will be transformed and expressed through many less direct and more subtle
ways. It follows therefore, that once expressed, it will relieve the condition,
and will diminish or disappear. This inevitability of expression makes
no sense at all, as most individuals who appear angry seem to remain angry most
of the time.
The expression of anger seems to do little to diminish subsequent
angry behavior, suggesting that until something fundamental changes, it will
continue indefinitely. This is clearly the case for dogs, as angry behavior
within certain situations is a
never-ending, habitual ritual. Changing habitual responses do not
occur by chance, but by design.
The
alternative explanation to inevitability of expression is restraint.
Nothing in the world requires that humans express anger outwardly, openly, or
honestly, as some suggest. All emotions can readily be viewed as
derivative, with no fundamental essence propelling them, or requiring
expression. Emotions, in this regard, are much like the head on a mug of
beer. In a few seconds, the frothy head disappears completely. It is
foolish to presume that the head, like emotions, is the most important part of
the beverage.
Angry
emotions can all be buried one after another with no consequence of any kind.
This position suggests that anger can be minimized, controlled, and converted
into other, more productive courses of action. Dogs are able to perform
this feat without consequence, and in the process they become more compliant,
more sociable, and open to learn more appropriate behavior than
barking, growling, chasing and biting whatever gets in their way.
Grandpa is convinced that his grandsons, in spite of their genetic
background, are equally as smart as most dogs. Given the proper conditions for
developing socially appropriate behavior, they will be able to control their
destructive emotions, and learn to behave in proper ways. This will follow
automatically once they identify exactly who is the leader of the pack. When at
grandpa’s house, they better pay attention.
For some
reason, these techniques don't work so well with grandma?? I think there
is some part of pack leader that she doesn't understand!