My recent post on socialization created quite a buzz. Among the many points that I made throughout the blog, one of the most controversial was that having your dog passively sit and watch other dogs and people from a distance is not socialization.
Almost immediately I started receiving criticism on social media. My initial reflex was to defend my position. However, I didn’t want to just reactively dig my heels in. Some of these critics were making some reasonable statements. So I simply wrote: “valid point.”
There were enough critical comments to make me stop and think. One thing I did not do prior to writing that piece was actually look up the various definitions of socialization across different fields of study. In fact, I committed one of my own personal pet peeves: I was not careful about the language that I was using.
It didn’t take much poking around to realize that there were a variety of definitions of socialization, several of which would certainly include this type of passive exposure. Merriam-Webster defines it plainly as exposure to new people, animals, and situations, with no requirement that the animal interact with any of it. Broader definitions used in psychology and sociology are even wider, describing socialization as the general process of learning about one’s environment and internalizing how to navigate it.
So, I would like to say out loud that I was wrong.
Perhaps the way I should have framed the blog was that this type of passive socialization cannot accomplish everything that a well-socialized or fully socialized dog requires.
This section from the blog remains true: that there are certain things that can only be taught through interaction. In particular, the skills required to navigate conflict, read another dog’s boundaries, know when to back off, communicate when they need space, and correct another dog without taking it too far. These aspects of socialization cannot be taught through passive observation.
Alas, that is not the point of this particular blog. Even after I responded to some of my critics, acknowledging that they made valid points, some of them continued to prod, clearly looking to pick a fight.
I’m not interested in fighting. I’m okay with people disagreeing with me. I’m okay with not needing to always try to change somebody’s mind. Most importantly I’m okay with being wrong sometimes and with admitting it.
My hope from this blog is that it gives you permission to continue to put yourself out there even if it means occasionally falling on your face, and to listen to your critics with an open mind.
Most importantly, it’s okay to admit when you are wrong. Trust me, it’s a lot easier than fighting with strangers on the internet.
I coach other trainers for a living. Part of that job is helping them build confidence, in their read of a dog, in their programs, in what they tell clients. If I’m asking other trainers to hold themselves to a higher bar, to be precise, to be willing to be corrected, to keep learning even after they’ve built a following, I don’t get to skip that standard myself just because I’m the one writing the blog instead of reading it.
Being wrong in public isn’t the failure here. Refusing to say so would have been.
Leave a Reply