Walk up to a dog on the sidewalk. Reach a hand over its head to rub its ears and chomp. Teeth digging into the hand. First reaction, pull back. Strike out at the source of the pain. The dog. It's a bad dog, plain and simple, right?
That is the assumption, but there is much that can be learned from the situation of the 'bad' dog. Take a look at the context. Examine your own objectivity about the subject. A parent is likely to be beside themselves emotionally because their child is hurt. Many adults would be angry because the dog was not receptive nor appreciative to their overtures of attention.
But what about the dog? At any point did anyone stop and consider why the dog reacted like it did? The dog doesn't know the person. The person assumes the dog likes to be petted. The dog does not like being touched by strangers. Not an uncommon trait. Yet, the stranger's assumption of the dog's nature and their right to handle the dog is rarely considered. Why? Simply because the dog cannot communicate in a way that is effectively understood by most people. But the dog did communicate.
The person approached the dog. The dog did not stand up and approach the person. The dog did not stand period. The dog did not wag its tail or initiate contact of any kind. The person didn't listen or notice the signals. The dog decided to defend itself.
It is the same with people when they lash out. On the whole, people are quick to lash out and assign blame, but often there is enough fault on both sides. Should the dog have bitten, no. But should the stranger have touched the dog without a proper introduction? Also, no.
Context matters, whether it is written or IRL. If the dog bites and runs, impulse is to follow and punish the behaviour immediately. The dog's conditioning leads it to expect correction.
With people corrections can take any number of forms from verbal to physical. Often the verbal can be just as damaging if not more so because of the invisible scarring it leaves. Repeated exposure leaves one hypersensitive to criticism(s) and/or misconstrued context. Just as a dog or a child who has been struck will reflexively flinch back.
Just something to think about before following a dog back to its yard. What was the context surrounding the bite? The conflict medium (online vs. IRL). What were the observed patterns of behaviour prior to the bite incident?
Reasonable reaction is to let the dog retreat and decompress in a safe space. Just as an autisitc who has had a meteoric flame up and meltdown needs time to physically and mentally reset and deal with the shame and frustration of a meltdown.
With some people their immediate reaction is to 'correct' or fix the problem immediately. The dog is not allowed to retreat. Someone has a hold of its collar and it panics, lashing out anyway it can, only making the bitee more upset and emotional. The situation deteriorates beyond any form of workable conclusion. Worst case scenario. Dog is labelled unfit and dangerous. The dog is destroyed.
If the dog runs or a person vacated the field...seize the time if at all possible and look at the situation. Context can and does tell a very complex story. It can be the difference between making an unexpected friend and doing possibly irrepairable harm to both sides of the conflict.
This isn't a justification or an excuse for poor behaviour, just a plea to look beyond the obvious 'facts' and try to understand before doling out 'corrections'.
That is the assumption, but there is much that can be learned from the situation of the 'bad' dog. Take a look at the context. Examine your own objectivity about the subject. A parent is likely to be beside themselves emotionally because their child is hurt. Many adults would be angry because the dog was not receptive nor appreciative to their overtures of attention.
But what about the dog? At any point did anyone stop and consider why the dog reacted like it did? The dog doesn't know the person. The person assumes the dog likes to be petted. The dog does not like being touched by strangers. Not an uncommon trait. Yet, the stranger's assumption of the dog's nature and their right to handle the dog is rarely considered. Why? Simply because the dog cannot communicate in a way that is effectively understood by most people. But the dog did communicate.
The person approached the dog. The dog did not stand up and approach the person. The dog did not stand period. The dog did not wag its tail or initiate contact of any kind. The person didn't listen or notice the signals. The dog decided to defend itself.
It is the same with people when they lash out. On the whole, people are quick to lash out and assign blame, but often there is enough fault on both sides. Should the dog have bitten, no. But should the stranger have touched the dog without a proper introduction? Also, no.
Context matters, whether it is written or IRL. If the dog bites and runs, impulse is to follow and punish the behaviour immediately. The dog's conditioning leads it to expect correction.
With people corrections can take any number of forms from verbal to physical. Often the verbal can be just as damaging if not more so because of the invisible scarring it leaves. Repeated exposure leaves one hypersensitive to criticism(s) and/or misconstrued context. Just as a dog or a child who has been struck will reflexively flinch back.
Just something to think about before following a dog back to its yard. What was the context surrounding the bite? The conflict medium (online vs. IRL). What were the observed patterns of behaviour prior to the bite incident?
Reasonable reaction is to let the dog retreat and decompress in a safe space. Just as an autisitc who has had a meteoric flame up and meltdown needs time to physically and mentally reset and deal with the shame and frustration of a meltdown.
With some people their immediate reaction is to 'correct' or fix the problem immediately. The dog is not allowed to retreat. Someone has a hold of its collar and it panics, lashing out anyway it can, only making the bitee more upset and emotional. The situation deteriorates beyond any form of workable conclusion. Worst case scenario. Dog is labelled unfit and dangerous. The dog is destroyed.
If the dog runs or a person vacated the field...seize the time if at all possible and look at the situation. Context can and does tell a very complex story. It can be the difference between making an unexpected friend and doing possibly irrepairable harm to both sides of the conflict.
This isn't a justification or an excuse for poor behaviour, just a plea to look beyond the obvious 'facts' and try to understand before doling out 'corrections'.
Last edited: