# Confidence VS nerve



## sarah lewis (May 27, 2011)

Looking for experienced opinions on 1) definitions of both and 2) the difference between the two and how to recognize it as a strong or weak point in a dog.

Also does age play a role, does a dog need to be completely mature before it can be labeled one way or the other, or on the other end should a dog display these traits as a young puppy to know that this is coming from genetics as opposed to environmental issues.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

do you mean "nerve" as in "you may have the nerve to jump off a 100' cliff to the water, but i don't!!"?

or what, if not?


----------



## Jennifer Michelson (Sep 20, 2006)

I am curious about this too. My older dog is very 'brave', he will do anything even if it is not safe. His reaction to fear/anxiety is 'go faster'. He wont ever refuse to do something. 
I have a younger dog who has a very good survival instinct which sometimes makes him seem less 'brave', but he has been described as having better nerve than my first dog. He does not get rattled, does most things with deliberation-if it bothers him, he takes his time, figures out how to be safe and then does it.

Both dogs do disaster SAR training so I see these traits in relation to moving on rubble/uneven surfaces and agility equipment (ex 8ft ladder to 6ft plank and back down via ramp, tire bridge 4' off ground etc)


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I think nerve is inate. More nature than nurture. Confidence is something learned. A dog may have the nerve to try something but conditions could exist that they not do it again. Confidence is the same situation, handled skillfully and successfully and readies the dog to do the same. Confidence can be built upon to do even more difficult tasks.
Make sense? 
DFrost


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

David Frost said:


> I think nerve is inate. More nature than nurture. Confidence is something learned. A dog may have the nerve to try something but conditions could exist that they not do it again. Confidence is the same situation, handled skillfully and successfully and readies the dog to do the same. Confidence can be built upon to do even more difficult tasks.
> Make sense?
> DFrost


 My thoughts precisely David.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: but he has been described as having better nerve than my first dog.

Some see reactivity as nerve, and not what it is. 

The problem with definitions in the dog world is that there are too many people that cannot read a dog for shit, and believe without a doubt that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. LOL You see it with the raw feeders, their dogs are shiny and teeth are white and will live forever, and of course, they get shiny white toothed dogs that die when the rest of our dogs die, or sometime sooner, and are often embarrassed when it is pointed out that their dog is not as shiny as that dog, and he eats dog food out of a bag.

The best thing to do is try and go with your gut. Be as honest as you can with yourself, and then ****ing forget all those stupid definitions and just train your dog. : )


----------



## sarah lewis (May 27, 2011)

Thanks for all the input...

Its just referred to so often when we talk about aspects of temperament that make a dog "good" at a certain sport.

Obviously you can easily spot a dog who lacks nerve or confidence, but I think identifying a dog (or potential dog) that HAS these aspects is more difficult.... for example the dog that will progress well through bite work training and then once the stick gets involved the dog is done with it.

Or a dog that seems to have these temperament traits but gets nervy or lacks confidence in certain situations.

So can a confident dog lack nerve? or vice versa?


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

There is no black and white... only degrees.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> LOL You see it with the raw feeders, their dogs are shiny and teeth are white and will live forever, and of course, they get shiny white toothed dogs that die when the rest of our dogs die, or sometime sooner, and are often embarrassed when it is pointed out that their dog is not as shiny as that dog, and he eats dog food out of a bag.


Ok, don't call the FBI on me..true story :lol:

Applies to dogs, but about a cat. We had a big orange cat like Anna K's avatar that had shitbreath from calculus buildup on his teeth from kibble, about every 2 months we had to wrap the cat in a tensor bandage around his gut and I'd get out the welding gloves and get bit while my wife would scrape the barnacles off his teeth.

After a few yrs of that I just shot the cat.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

OK, I am going to take a shot at this, and will probably make no sense at all in the end, so **** off everyone. : )

Quote: So can a confident dog lack nerve? or vice versa?

When you ask this question, the problem with answering is how old is the dog ? As well as about a hundred other questions.

Dogs with high thresholds if they are going to startle when younger, it is usually going to be a bolt. They are going to run off, as it takes so much more for them to get startled, they are closer to the RUN AWAY response than a dog with lower thresholds, who is going to be weird at the new thing from a distance.

There seems to be a different threshold for all kinds of things.

So, you see your confidant dog get startled and go OH **** and run off a bit, or maybe a whole lot. Then you go get your dog, and take him over to the scary whatever it was, and he gets it. 

I think this is what you are talking about. Could be wrong, but really, I am very rarely wrong. I either know, or am clueless.

I have had lots of people get worried when this sort of thing happens, and then they are trying to figure out all this terminology, and whatever, I told you it would get messy. 

I quit.


----------



## sarah lewis (May 27, 2011)

No it all makes sense, and only confuses me more lol

But I was asking for it.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

My .02 to confuse things more. My sole criteria, after health, for picking my pups at 4 weeks is confidence. When looking at a litter, it is plain as day. They are born with a basic level of confidence from the extremely confident on down.

Nerve is another thing. Confidence puts my dogs in front of animals far bigger and more dangerous than they are. Then, a hog hooks a dog and pitches him 8 ft in the air like he is nothing. Nerve is why they get back in the fight knowing they are over matched.....or maybe they are just pissed off.


----------



## Tiago Fontes (Apr 17, 2011)

I stopped trying to find definitions and terminology. Pretty much works like this: 

Courage or not.

Confidence or not. 

Takes pressure or not. 

Recovers or not (time of recovery is important). 

Handles tough situations with a clear head. 


A good friend of mine that is a beef cattle breeder has cattle dogs (fila de S. Miguel.) On a recent trip visiting him, all he mentioned after hearing the terminology was:

"All I care is if the dogs have the balls to drive the cattle and control unruly bulls, work for many hours a day, not be phased while going through towns and busy places...remain focused in the work and my commands as driver of the herd. They also must not back down when I leave them to guard milk and equipment at the pastures and must protect me from drunk idiots at the end of the day in the pub". LOL


Regards


----------



## Petra Dabezic (May 23, 2011)

That is very to-the-point, Tiago. I hear many people invent all sorts of justifications for weird nervous behavior. To name a few:Maybe it's his age...but he'll grow up. Maybe it's his training...he'll develop more confidence. I haven't had him out much...so maybe it's lack of socialization. Maybe he's in a fear stage...which is natrual. It's ok for this dog's lines. Believe me, I was one of them. Remember I had a dobermann.The truth of it is that there is no normal, every day stuff in the human world which should freak out a dog. Period. If they are bred to do our bidding on our turf, then gosh darn it, they shouldn't be weird in response to engine noise, bicyclists, etc etc. Surprised, and interested the first time or so as a puppy...whatever. For me, there isn't going to be anymore walking-on-eggshells, or heroic degrees of socialization for a dog to get used to absoloutely normal crap in life. As far as every day living and environments, ANY dog should be wash-and-wear. Period. And that's the basement floor requirement.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

My first GSD pup didn't like women or small children. I wondered about this and thought he may grow out of it but at the back of my mind was the feeling "this dog has probably only known "big" men as he came from a good sports dog kennel". This made me think that he was cautious of what he didn't know.

And so it is. The dog is easy with sports friends but either "too protective" of me and of house and garden. This can result to his snarling at someone who approaches us too near.

I don't need to take him through the Swiss or German Temperament Test. He might just pass it but I know enough of him to know that I would not breed from him.

He's an excellent sports dog - feels confident on the club grounds - is very friendly to all there but....

I don't have problems with him taking him out for a walk - I don't have problems with him at the Club but I would not breed from him.

I love the big 45 kilos heavy, pushy idiot BTW.


----------



## sarah lewis (May 27, 2011)

Good points

I think also some people can misinterpret "reactivity" as nerve when really the dog is only reacting because of lack of nerve.

I have 3 dogs, 2 bulldogges and a mastiff. My mastiff is a nerve bag and although can put on a nice display for the mail man and the neighbors its her display that tells me she is trying to fend off the "threat" instead of facing it.

My bullies on the other hand never really bark, especially my male, he sees almost nothing as a threat and if something does catch his attention all he wants to do is investigate it. He is very good with loud noises, strange people, strange places and things... I have only seen him startle twice and both times it was only for a few seconds before he was racing towards what startled him to address it. Its my favorite aspect of his temperament.

Too bad his prey drive sucks or he could really be a nice well rounded working dog.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I think nerve is inate. More nature than nurture. Confidence is something learned. A dog may have the nerve to try something but conditions could exist that they not do it again. Confidence is the same situation, handled skillfully and successfully and readies the dog to do the same. Confidence can be built upon to do even more difficult tasks.
> Make sense?
> DFrost


david--in a nutshell as per usual.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I always considered courage as inherent (nature), confidence as learned (nurture), and have never bothered to sort out the conflicting ideas about what nerve was supposed to mean.

I could propose, that if you consider nerve to be the "nature factor" as Dave suggests, then how about: NERVE + CONFIDENCE = COURAGE (or, nature + nurture = overall phenotype)

That's similar to another formula I use (for something irrelevant here) APTITUDE + DISCIPLINE = PROFICIENCY where Aptitude is the inborn natural potential,
and Discipline is the summary of training and experience (conditioning, etc.),
Proficiency is the quantitative quality of the two.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I always considered courage as inherent (nature), confidence as learned (nurture), and have never bothered to sort out the conflicting ideas about what nerve was supposed to mean.
> 
> I could propose, that if you consider nerve to be the "nature factor" as Dave suggests, then how about: NERVE + CONFIDENCE = COURAGE (or, nature + nurture = overall phenotype)
> 
> ...


Daryl I'm on board with your explanation. Short sweet and correct.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Hey look another terminalogical (yeah I made that word up , so what) nightmare of a thread . **** me !


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

yeah jim--terminalogical stuff is over-rated! one reason i asked the question i did in the first place, lol.


----------



## sarah lewis (May 27, 2011)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I always considered courage as inherent (nature), confidence as learned (nurture), and have never bothered to sort out the conflicting ideas about what nerve was supposed to mean.
> 
> I could propose, that if you consider nerve to be the "nature factor" as Dave suggests, then how about: NERVE + CONFIDENCE = COURAGE (or, nature + nurture = overall phenotype)
> 
> ...


I like this as well =D>


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

If I wanted to get really geeky, I could make a chart for it, illustrating a bell curve for the combined of the two qualities.

If a score of the two combined ran on a scale from one to 10 each, the high-natural low-disciplined candidate could be qualitatively compareable to the low-natural high-disciplined candidate. The former would have a great aptitude for many of life's endeavors, and likely be more favored by natural selection, and also have the ability to reproduce that successful behavior into it's offspring.... while the latter would be for example; a college graduate with textbook knowledge and fabulous memorization skills, but with no real-world experience.

Better off just training dogs than talking about them, like Jeff suggests.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> If I wanted to get really geeky, I could make a chart for it, illustrating a bell curve for the combined of the two qualities.


Betcha 5 bucks you can't .


----------



## sarah lewis (May 27, 2011)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Betcha 5 bucks you can't .


I will raise that to 10

Being the nerd that I am I would actually love to see it


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

So when you combine the values of Nerve and Confidence (1-10 each), you get a score of 1-20, which is the total acting (or resisting) force in a given situation. In the matrix below, cross reference that with the opposing force (also a 1-20 score based on similar logic) to determine the percent probability rating of overcoming the "FEAR FACTOR" in a given "Courage Test".

Let's say they are two opposing forces; the helper's "Intimidation Factor" (involving body language, battlecries, slobber-factor, etc. that reflect "technique" employed in the exchange) and "Force of Presence" (which consists of body size and mass, type of armament, strength of underarm odor, etc. that involve more earthly substantial factors).

So, the dog's Nerve(9) combined with Confidence(4) would result in a Courage Factor of "13". If the helper's a small-fry guy, not to impressive, say a "4", but happens to be a hot headed Irishman that can scare the bejeezjuz out of guys twice his size with a score of "9", then the helper and dog are relatively on equal terms in the face-off about to occur. But, because the dog is the "resisting" force (in blue) and not the "acting" force (in red) in the situation, he is at a natural disadvantage in the exchange below, as a 13:13 in the matrix equals a "52%", in favor of the helper.

The "bell curve" is built-into the probability matrix below. The optimal peak of each factor, becomes successively smaller and smaller, and this is reflected in the proportions of overall percentage success rate as indicated.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

You're gonna have to work harder than that to get my 5 bucks.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

MAN! I don't know if I can get geekier than that.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

I just didn't understand the matrix,you need to have pictures for my little mind :lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

This thread has been an eye opener for me. I had no idea so many saw condifence as a learned trait when it is is evident even in small pups. This must be why, as a breeder, I don't put much stock in a dog that needs it's confidence built up through training but trainers and LE are willing to put their life on the line because of it. People always look for the bold confident pups. I have never had someone pick one that didn't appear to be confident with the thought they would take it home and build it's confidence to an acceptable level. I did sell the less confident of two pups this mornig to a couple because they wanted a house dog. The confidence and boldness of the one I still have kind of unnerved them when they considered what the dog would be like in the house. That is the one I am keeping.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding what you see. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9s1I1TZqJg

N00Bs, all ahead of themselves.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I have been giving this idea that confidence is learned a lot of thought. I think this misconception comes from the fact that, today, people tend to always look at the shy, less confident pup as merely not being given the proper socialization(condtioning). No one is connecting this "percieved lack of socialization" with a simple lack of confdence anymore. The reality is that the increasing lack of confidence gave rise to the need for early conditioning. The term "socialization" is a bad terminology meant to misrepresent what is actually taking place. Solid, confident pups will be just that with or without the conditioning....because they were "born" that way.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I do expect a dog that has not been socialized to be a little off. However, in a perfect world, I want that dog to get over it, and do so quickly. When the world presents itself as being nothing to fear. It is when that does not happen, you should look at what you are doing.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am not saying that the socialization and handling is going to hurt the most confident dogs by any means. I am saying that even without the socialization, they are just better dogs. Take a litter that has been heavily socialized. You can watch them and still pick out the ones that really didn't need it.

I don't handle the pups until they are on their feet and coming out of the whelping box. The top pups are so obvious it isn't funny in comparison to the other end of the spectrum. The low end of the spectrum makes better pets for most which is nice.

The point I am making is that "real" confidence is born, not made. I have no doubt that a dog that always gets to win, they are going to show better confidence....until they meet their match and they are not winning....that is when you will see the illusion of confidence building.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Don, I agree witzh this entirely.

Our younger GSD has nerves of steel, has always been a "what does the world cost" type of dog. Took and takes things into his stride, loves kids and adults but will not tolerate being ordered around by anyone other than us.

The Briard we had did not need socialising either. He was a pretty neutral dog and was not interested in other people.

The Landseer was a self-confident chap and the Fila Brasileiro lost a lot of his earlier aggression by being introduced to all sorts of environments.

I think that by socialising pups you can make them manageable but you can't instill confidence where it doesn't exist.


----------



## sarah lewis (May 27, 2011)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I have been giving this idea that confidence is learned a lot of thought. I think this misconception comes from the fact that, today, people tend to always look at the shy, less confident pup as merely not being given the proper socialization(condtioning). No one is connecting this "percieved lack of socialization" with a simple lack of confdence anymore. The reality is that the increasing lack of confidence gave rise to the need for early conditioning. The term "socialization" is a bad terminology meant to misrepresent what is actually taking place. Solid, confident pups will be just that with or without the conditioning....because they were "born" that way.


I agree, this is why you can see some dogs come out of an abusive and neglectful situation and still be stable dogs with minimal effort and training, while some dogs just can't cope.

I don't think you need to go out of your way to socialize a well bred dog. If we are talking about a nervous dog (which sadly probably rules pet homes) then socialization can go a long way to bringing them to the high end of their genetic spectrum and can be of great benefit.

I think temperament is 99% genetic (and we can all agree about that I hope lol) but dogs have a spectrum that can slide up and down that has defined end points, and a trainer or handler can only slide that dog`s temperament as low or high as its genetic spectrum will allow.


----------



## sarah lewis (May 27, 2011)

Daryl Ehret said:


> So when you combine the values of Nerve and Confidence (1-10 each), you get a score of 1-20, which is the total acting (or resisting) force in a given situation. In the matrix below, cross reference that with the opposing force (also a 1-20 score based on similar logic) to determine the percent probability rating of overcoming the "FEAR FACTOR" in a given "Courage Test".
> 
> Let's say they are two opposing forces; the helper's "Intimidation Factor" (involving body language, battlecries, slobber-factor, etc. that reflect "technique" employed in the exchange) and "Force of Presence" (which consists of body size and mass, type of armament, strength of underarm odor, etc. that involve more earthly substantial factors).
> 
> ...


I like it


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

The only catch is, the model assumes that there's a 50/50 overall potential influence of fitness between that which is genetic and that which is learned, and therfore when the two are combined, that which is learned (in some circumstances) can be appearantly better suited to a challenge than an un-trained _natural talent_ that has NO training.

Somewhere between the two, of what is natural and what is learned, is the early foundation of developed behaviors as the dog's neurological development is very much more malleable, or 'plastic'. The genetic hard wiring of their early neurological development sets the path for learning, and then these behaviors are built upon dramatically, in the form of imprinted behaviors that can have a very lasting effect, but different enough to be distinguished from standard measures of learned training and conditioning.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> The only catch is, the model assumes that there's a 50/50 overall potential influence of fitness between that which is genetic and that which is learned, and therfore when the two are combined, that which is learned (in some circumstances) can be appearantly better suited to a challenge than an un-trained _natural talent_ that has NO training.
> 
> Somewhere between the two, of what is natural and what is learned, is the early foundation of developed behaviors as the dog's neurological development is very much more malleable, or 'plastic'. The genetic hard wiring of their early neurological development sets the path for learning, and then these behaviors are built upon dramatically, in the form of imprinted behaviors that can have a very lasting effect, but different enough to be distinguished from standard measures of learned training and conditioning.


I feel dizzy .


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Not a geek bone in your body.


----------

