# Hardness in Dogs...



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

here is an article on the term Hardness, written by Armin Winkler...tried to post it elsewhere on here, not sure if it posted or not though....

I think it is a good read, and breaks down hardness pretty well. In regards to hardness, there is more than one type of hardness...also discusses reactivity briefly...I like Armin's articles and use his definitions for many things...

*Hardness*
_Hardness is another term that is used too broadly. Dogs are generalized with this label. But what does hardness mean? Let's have a closer look at it. The Swiss behaviorist Dr. E. Seiferle defined this term the following way. "The ability to take negative influences and experiences such as pain, punishment, defeat in a fight without being affected significantly at the moment they happen or in the long term." In this definition, it is very clear, that the dog in question has to perceive the influence he is experiencing as adverse or negative and deal with it without being significantly affected by it.

When a dog is called hard, many interpretations are possible, unless more detailed examinations are done to truly assess a dog's hardness. In my mind, the first logical factor to assess is the dog's stimulus thresholds. For example, one of the influences specifically mentioned in Dr. Seiferle's definition is pain. But as I have already mentioned, dogs' pain thresholds vary a great deal. If a dog has a very high pain threshold, that means it takes a pretty severe physical influence to cause the dog discomfort. But if the dog does not perceive a physical influence as painful, can we really say that he is "taking" pain? I don't think we can. Not perceiving the negative gives us no indication on how the dog would deal with something negative.

I would say that most of the time when someone speaks of a dog's hardness, all we really learn about the dog is his pain threshold and his level of reactivity. What is reactivity? Well, by that I just mean a tendency to show a reaction. It doesn't seem to matter nowadays what kind of reaction a dog shows. A dog that shows any reaction is too often automatically labeled as not as hard as a dog that shows no reaction. Often even positive and strong reactions are interpreted as signs of weakness, while dogs that either are not very reactive and/or have high stimulus thresholds are often called hard.

I break down hardness into three areas.

Pain-hardness
Hardness to the helper
Hardness to the handler.
These are the main areas where the term hardness is used. I think pain-hardness can simply be called pain threshold. It is in fact the level of physical influence that the dog perceives as uncomfortable or painful. It makes no statement about the dog's character or temperament. Hardness to the helper depends clearly on the dog's threshold for defensive stimuli. A dog that does not feel threatened by the helper should not be called hard. Hardness to the handler depends on how easily a dog is affected by the emotions of the handler. Yes, I did mean to say emotions.

Naturally there are overlaps in these three areas. Often dogs link a neutral stimulus like pain to the helper, or to the handler in which case the threshold of stimulation relating to helper or handler becomes a factor in how the dog deals with the pain. Think about dogs that can't wear a pinch collar for obedience because they would crumble. Many of those same dogs will pull their owner on a bicycle by a Springer fastened to a pinch collar without blinking an eye. The difference is that there is no handler influence during the bike ride. Another example, there are dogs who have no problem if their owner slaps them with a soft stick — some even get excited by it. Those dogs, if their thresholds for defensive stimuli are low, will show extreme reactions (positive or negative) if a helper does exactly the same thing.

Another factor that greatly affects a dog's ability to "endure" something is his drives. I chose the word "endure" to differentiate it from the word "take" that Seiferle used in his definition of hardness. For example, a dog may endure a negative influence to satisfy his prey drive, that is not the same as being able to take the same negative influence in a situation where his prey drive is not activated.

The standardized testing for hardness in Schutzhund trials, in breed suitability tests, and in breed surveys are generally the two stick hits during protection work. This gives us barely a glimpse at the dog and nowhere close to a detailed picture. The things we learn are quite useful, and informative, but I don't think they tell us much about the dog's hardness.

A superficial label is not enough; we have to look at the dog's behavior through the lens of what we know about his biology and psychology. We have to keep the definition of hardness in mind and look at all the details surrounding the situation and keep all observations in their proper perspectives to get as accurate a picture about the dog as possible. This is crucial for making the right selection decisions and designing the right training program for the dog._


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Glad to see we have a winner! #-o


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Some of the absolutely hardest, in the ground, earth dogs I've had were very people soft and responsive.
One of my two GSD's is so handler soft it drives me crazy yet he's got a dark side that was easily tapped into on the Schutzhund training field. 
"Hard dog" can be such a diverse term to describe a dog.


----------



## Erica Boling (Jun 17, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Some of the absolutely hardest, in the ground, earth dogs I've had were very people soft and responsive.
> One of my two GSD's is so handler soft it drives me crazy yet he's got a dark side that was easily tapped into on the Schutzhund training field.
> "Hard dog" can be such a diverse term to describe a dog.


This is what I struggle with when using the term.. In some contexts the dog can appear to be "soft" and very responsive... then in a different context, the same dog can appear to be very strong and "hard."


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

Love & agree with Armin's definition (not that it matters) I find myself in a quandary with different dogs also, much has to do with genetic disposition, age & experience, I believe in that order. I personally want a dog that is ready to engage in the fight towards a threat (aggression) & not back down, that is the hardness I value. I think in sporting venues i.e. Hunting, earth dogs,Dons dales (can't get over that one) they call it game. JMHO!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

the reason I keep re-visiting the Armin definitions are:

I have owned 

socially aggressive
sharp
reactive 

etc..
dogs that DO NOT fit the descriptions I keep reading on message boards..

reactive for instance..
or low threshold...

somehow, to some people equal bad nerves, or weak dogs..

that is not always the case...and calm is great..but does not equal a stronger dog...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> the reason I keep re-visiting the Armin definitions are:
> 
> I have owned
> 
> ...





I think all of the terms can be divided by levels of sharpness, reactive, low threshold, etc but this is where the disagreement come in. Everyone's starting level for "whatever" may be completely different. 
Then two different people looking at the same dog may disagree on the dog even having the particular trait. 
Doubtful it will ever really change.
Fortunately all on the WDF come from the same training behavioral background so we can agree on everything.  ](*,):-# :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :-\":-\" :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_"Fortunately all on the WDF come from the same training behavioral background so we can agree on everything."_



Can, and DO! Isn't that lucky?!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"Fortunately all on the WDF come from the same training behavioral background so we can agree on everything."_
> 
> 
> 
> Can, and DO! Isn't that lucky?!



It's something for sure. Just not sure if luck in in the formula. :lol::lol:


----------



## eugene ramirez (Jun 22, 2010)

Thanks Toby for posting this informative definition, description and explanation of hardness.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Then two different people looking at the same dog may disagree on the dog even having the particular trait.  ](*,):-# :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :-\":-\" :wink:


 
WRONG!!!!! Then two different people looking at the same dog WILL MOST LIKELY disagree on the dog even having the particular trait


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> WRONG!!!!! Then two different people looking at the same dog WILL MOST LIKELY disagree on the dog even having the particular trait


No way. Then two different people looking at the same dog WILL COMPLETELY disagree on the dog even having the particular trait.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

forget thinking about two people looking at the same dog for a minute 
.... how about ONE person looking at the SAME dog ... with two different people ?? 

i think this article overlooks some aspects present in most every dog that affect "hardness"

it IS an interesting, good read, and if taken at face value, also logical. however right from the get go, he breaks down hardness into three separate definitions of hardness, even tho he covers that later by saying there are "overlaps" ](*,) 
.... which makes it appear you cannot judge hardness by only evaluating the dog, which is good .... but most people i am around who use the term are ONLY referring to the dog itself as being hard or not 

i've said before l don't use the labels of hardness, and try to avoid EVER labeling a dog as this that or... whatever. too many variables involved. plus, i no longer subscribe to the "all genetics" definitions which seems to be what the article is supporting

hardness is VERY much related to the person it's with, rather than any character trait genetically constituted in the dog. a dog can be hard for one person and soft for another. if so, which label is the correct one ?
- dogs are just too dependent on people, and unless we forget, that is one of the main reasons the species has separated from other species of canines. it stands to reason their behaviors are very people dependent also, especially behaviors described when they interact with people. i've never heard of studies to determine if feral dogs were also "hard", or what would make some harder than others 

pain tolerance can vary from handler to handler too ... i have seen dogs scream when their owner steps on their toes but say NOTHING when i do the same thing

also, i have also seen the same mwd act totally different when handlers were switched.....didn't look like the same dog in terms of handler hardness or handler aggressiveness, whichever way it was viewed or labeled

discussing these terms may be interesting in abstract conversations and maybe it's necessary when doing behavioral studies, but not much bang for the buck when dealing with REAL situations

i've said it before, but i use my own term when talking about canine behavior .... "plasticity"  i think ALL dogs are plastic....they adapt to the humans around them, and not always in the same predictable ways with all humans they contact, which imo makes a label of hardness difficult to pin down and extremely subjective

i'm sure no authority on canine behavior but everyone has to agree that the same dog will NOT act the same with everyone they are with, and there have been many cases where an extreme "hard" dog turns out not to be so extreme when a different handler works with it.....so would that mean ? is it still just as hard, or is there a "hardness threshold" hidden somewhere that is different depending on who the dog is with ? too abstract for me to care about or dwell on

anyway, the dog could care less what its label is, and most good owners i know simply work with what they got, build up what they can, and try their best to extinguish the problems as best they can......all this can be probably be done without any knowledge or discussion of hardness 

i also don't agree with some of his statements :
re: "It is in fact the level of physical influence that the dog perceives as uncomfortable or painful. It makes no statement about the dog's character or temperament."
1. i don't think enough studies have been done to fully explain how a dog perceives pain
2. i definitely think what we might call reaction to pain in dogs can definitely be related to the dog's character. it's been my experience that most dogs who appear to to have low pain thresholds (expressed by vocalizing) are also weak in overall character
3. dogs have evolved to deliberately mask pain for entirely different reasons than humans, but when they learn that a yelp gets what they want, it is no longer a pain response imo 
4. "uncomfortable" is too subjective to be useful as it relates to a level of pain imo

re: "It doesn't seem to matter nowadays what kind of reaction a dog shows. A dog that shows any reaction is too often automatically labeled as not as hard as a dog that shows no reaction. Often even positive and strong reactions are interpreted as signs of weakness, while dogs that either are not very reactive and/or have high stimulus thresholds are often called hard"
1. i think it does matter and i don't agree this is a common feeling with competent trainers and handlers these days

but i DO agree with this : "A superficial label is not enough; we have to look at the dog's behavior"


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

2. i definitely think what we might call reaction to pain in dogs can definitely be related to the dog's character. it's been my experience that most dogs who appear to to have low pain thresholds (expressed by vocalizing) are also weak in overall character

What is *weak in overall character* to you Rick?


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Rick isnt any and all commentary on dogs "subjective"? lol


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

disclaimer : the dog is healthy ...

a few signs of overall weak character for me that quickly come to mind :
- dogs who walk very lightly and are sensitive to walking surfaces (hop over grates with small openings, avoid some ground textures, etc)
- dogs wearing a flat collar who vocalize when given a light leash pop
- dogs who won't climb stairs
- dogs who won't jump over an obstacle if they haven't seen what's on the other side
- dogs who whine when they are put outside
- dogs who will rarely lay down on their own when in public and are constantly sitting up and scanning
- dogs who get hung up when they try to jump over an obstacle and then refuse to try again
- dogs who hear a sudden sharp sound and lift a paw and maybe even shake while sitting
- dog who has little or no interest to rebite a tug or sleeve after outing
...could probably list more but kinda hard to pinpoint exact character flaws...these are just stuff i hate seeing and makes me think the dog will be weak in other areas too

very subjective of course


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

rick smith said:


> disclaimer : the dog is healthy ...
> 
> a few signs of overall weak character for me that quickly come to mind :
> - dogs who walk very lightly and are sensitive to walking surfaces (hop over grates with small openings, avoid some ground textures, etc)
> ...


 
Rick, I Guess for me there are some deal breakers in dogs that I do not want to see no matter what. But I recently just seen a dog that came out of his crate out of drive a complete weirdo. Suspicious of everything. he was friendly but he was not trusting. He was afraid of anything in your hands. He was almost worried about just being not being in a crate like he had goraphobia (fear of open places). But put him in drive and you had a dog, He was not afraid to engage, of sticks...nothing. If you just saw him work, you would not have been like wow, I need me some of that in my lines. But you would not of thought ill of him. And of course for me his behavior out of drive was a deal breaker...it was just too weird. But it does make me reconsider some of my ideas that I have about if a dog shows weakness here, it attibutes to weakness there.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> No way. Then two different people looking at the same dog WILL COMPLETELY disagree on the dog even having the particular trait.


 
And no one will ever know the truth, in the end it's still just a guess what these little guys are thinking. We can make a guess on a behavior and what we believe the dog is thinking, make a training plan and even if it supports our guess, we could have just gotten lucky. 

I mean I am pretty sure about my guess when I make multiple behavioral changes in the dog based on how I believe the dog is thinking. But if someone else does not want to believe me and has other ideas... I am pretty powerless to prove beyond a doubt that I am correct.


----------

