-
When I say “rooted in Social” I’m saying that I think the behavior has its motivational root in the dog’s Social drive. Socialization periods (a la Scott and Fuller) shape the way the dog comes to understand social dynamics and how he expresses his Social drive. This is why I am curious about David and Ben’s experience during the secondary socialization and fear periods in puppyhood, so that I can better understand the ways in which Ben might understand his own place in relation to David and other humans.
I’m all for standard use of terms. For instance, a lot of people use that term “socialization” to mean something other than a very specific developmental period and process. I think standardized terms work best when the definition is specific and obvious enough that everyone can agree on its usage. When it comes to things like drive theory though, we are talking about broad conceptual schemas that help us make sense of the world. I am aware of the “Aggression Drives” schematization from the FSDT coursework (which if I am not mistaken is taken from the work of Jerry Bradshaw, correct?) but I don’t think it’s a good representation because it implies that there’s a binary, spectrum-like quality to aggression. I don’t think aggression is a “drive,” which is to say, a motivation. If we could ask a fear-biter why he bites, he wouldn’t say “I bite because I’m aggressive,” he would say, “I bite because I’m afraid.” “Aggressive” describes the behavior not the motivation (aka drive).
I appreciate what you guys are doing as far as trying to come up with standardized descriptions and theories of dog training, but surely there’s room in this community for healthy and reasonable disagreement that doesn’t come down to just definitions of words?
