27/02/2025
Zak George speaking that truth✨️💖🫶🐾🐕
LOUDER for the ones in back 📢
"Ever notice how the loudest, most aggressive voices in dog training tend to be the ones defending pain, fear, and intimidation? That’s not a coincidence.
There’s a pattern to the hostility toward force-free training, and psychology helps explain why.
Studies show that people with inflated but fragile self-esteem react with hostility when their expertise is questioned.
It’s not about what works or what is more advanced. It’s about protecting their identity. Trainers who have built their reputation on dominance-based methods see the shift toward humane training as a threat to their credibility, so they fight back. Not with science, but with fallacious outrage.
People don’t just overestimate their expertise, they actively resist changing their minds when confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
This is called motivated reasoning, a well-documented cognitive bias where people interpret information in a way that supports their existing views, even when it’s demonstrably false (K***a, 1990).
For example, when studies show that force-free training is more effective and less harmful, trainers who rely on punishment don’t engage with the data, they dismiss it outright or twist it to fit their existing beliefs, claiming that “real-world training” is different or that “science can’t train dogs.”
Additionally, cognitive rigidity plays a major role. Studies show that people with rigid thinking styles struggle to adapt to new information, especially when it challenges something they’ve built their identity around (Cañas et al., 2003).
This explains why some trainers, despite overwhelming evidence against punishment-based methods, double down instead of evolving, it’s not about facts, it’s about identity preservation.
I already know the counterarguments:
“Aren’t YOU the one lashing out?”
“Isn’t this just ego on your part?”
Here’s the difference between advocacy and ego driven aggression:
Advocating for humane training isn’t about personal dominance, it’s about aligning with the most credentialed experts in the field.
The ACVB, AVSAB, BVA, and ESVCE, the most respected bodies in animal behavior, all state unequivocally (based on scientific evidence) that force-free methods are superior to punishment-based methods.
That’s not my ego talking. That’s the consensus of modern science.
The people attacking force-free trainers aren’t debating, they’re ignoring every major body of expertise in favor of personal pride. That’s the difference.
I don’t call out harm because my feelings are hurt. I call it out because it’s necessary.
The difference between cruelty and advocacy is intent. They attack to protect their egos. We advocate to protect dogs and the public.
Cruelty isn’t strength. It’s a lack of imagination. Trainers who claim force is “necessary” aren’t proving strength, they’re exposing mental rigidity.
Modern research shows that punishment damages trust and isn’t more effective than humane methods. So why do some trainers refuse to change?
Because they can’t imagine another way. And that’s human nature.
But here’s the thing: it’s one thing to struggle with new ideas, it’s another to actively reject them, to lash out at those who present them, and to fight for the right to keep using force when better methods exist. That’s where the problem lies.
People use force when they lack the patience, creativity, or skill to train differently. The same is true in human interactions, those who resort to personal attacks do so because they don’t know how to engage meaningfully.
And this fight is bigger than just dog training. The same people who insist on hurting dogs also attack people, harassing, belittling, and ridiculing those who challenge them.
There is a well-documented connection between normalizing cruelty toward animals and a brand of male violence (also adopted by women in the industry as well) in human society, particularly in the U.S.
Historically, the same justifications used to defend violence against animals, control, dominance, submission, have been used to excuse violence against marginalized groups, including women and children. This isn’t a coincidence.
They operate in the same way with both dogs and humans: force, fear, and control.
The best trainers, the most skilled, respected, and knowledgeable, aren’t the ones jerking dogs around by their necks or shocking them. They’re the ones who can adapt. Who are open to learning. Who understand that dogs aren’t meant to submit out of fear but to thrive through trust.
Sources:
Relation of Threatened Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8650299/
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One%27s_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments
Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to Violence
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13599643_Threatened_Egotism_Narcissism_Self-Esteem_and_Direct_and_Displaced_Aggression_Does_Self-Love_or_Self-Hate_Lead_to_Violence"
Ever notice how the loudest, most aggressive voices in dog training tend to be the ones defending pain, fear, and intimidation? That’s not a coincidence.
There’s a pattern to the hostility toward force-free training, and psychology helps explain why.
Studies show that people with inflated but fragile self-esteem react with hostility when their expertise is questioned.
It’s not about what works or what is more advanced. It’s about protecting their identity. Trainers who have built their reputation on dominance-based methods see the shift toward humane training as a threat to their credibility, so they fight back. Not with science, but with fallacious outrage.
People don’t just overestimate their expertise, they actively resist changing their minds when confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
This is called motivated reasoning, a well-documented cognitive bias where people interpret information in a way that supports their existing views, even when it’s demonstrably false (K***a, 1990).
For example, when studies show that force-free training is more effective and less harmful, trainers who rely on punishment don’t engage with the data, they dismiss it outright or twist it to fit their existing beliefs, claiming that “real-world training” is different or that “science can’t train dogs.”
Additionally, cognitive rigidity plays a major role. Studies show that people with rigid thinking styles struggle to adapt to new information, especially when it challenges something they’ve built their identity around (Cañas et al., 2003).
This explains why some trainers, despite overwhelming evidence against punishment-based methods, double down instead of evolving, it’s not about facts, it’s about identity preservation.
I already know the counterarguments:
“Aren’t YOU the one lashing out?”
“Isn’t this just ego on your part?”
Here’s the difference between advocacy and ego driven aggression:
Advocating for humane training isn’t about personal dominance, it’s about aligning with the most credentialed experts in the field.
The ACVB, AVSAB, BVA, and ESVCE, the most respected bodies in animal behavior, all state unequivocally (based on scientific evidence) that force-free methods are superior to punishment-based methods.
That’s not my ego talking. That’s the consensus of modern science.
The people attacking force-free trainers aren’t debating, they’re ignoring every major body of expertise in favor of personal pride. That’s the difference.
I don’t call out harm because my feelings are hurt. I call it out because it’s necessary.
The difference between cruelty and advocacy is intent. They attack to protect their egos. We advocate to protect dogs and the public.
Cruelty isn’t strength. It’s a lack of imagination. Trainers who claim force is “necessary” aren’t proving strength, they’re exposing mental rigidity.
Modern research shows that punishment damages trust and isn’t more effective than humane methods. So why do some trainers refuse to change?
Because they can’t imagine another way. And that’s human nature.
But here’s the thing: it’s one thing to struggle with new ideas, it’s another to actively reject them, to lash out at those who present them, and to fight for the right to keep using force when better methods exist. That’s where the problem lies.
People use force when they lack the patience, creativity, or skill to train differently. The same is true in human interactions, those who resort to personal attacks do so because they don’t know how to engage meaningfully.
And this fight is bigger than just dog training. The same people who insist on hurting dogs also attack people, harassing, belittling, and ridiculing those who challenge them.
There is a well-documented connection between normalizing cruelty toward animals and a brand of male violence (also adopted by women in the industry as well) in human society, particularly in the U.S.
Historically, the same justifications used to defend violence against animals, control, dominance, submission, have been used to excuse violence against marginalized groups, including women and children. This isn’t a coincidence.
They operate in the same way with both dogs and humans: force, fear, and control.
The best trainers, the most skilled, respected, and knowledgeable, aren’t the ones jerking dogs around by their necks or shocking them. They’re the ones who can adapt. Who are open to learning. Who understand that dogs aren’t meant to submit out of fear but to thrive through trust.
Sources:
Relation of Threatened Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8650299/
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One%27s_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments
Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to Violence
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13599643_Threatened_Egotism_Narcissism_Self-Esteem_and_Direct_and_Displaced_Aggression_Does_Self-Love_or_Self-Hate_Lead_to_Violence
𝕋𝕣𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘, 𝔼𝕕𝕦𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝔸𝕕𝕧𝕠𝕔𝕒𝕔𝕪 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕕𝕠𝕘𝕤, & 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕡𝕖𝕠𝕡𝕝𝕖 𝕨𝕙𝕠 𝕝𝕠𝕧𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞.
