Monday, June 27, 2022

What Would Andy Griffith Do?



If you were looking for a community leader, would you look to Andy Griffith or Barney Fife?

If you were looking for a dog trainer, would you look to Andy Griffith or Barney Fife?

Why?

The reason I ask this question, is that these two television characters are a shared American experience, and therefore a kind of "totem" we can talk about.  They also reflect, to some degree, two very different types of people to whom dogs and people react quite similarly.

Does a person who talks a lot, shouts on occasion, and who is generally a bit manic and insecure (i.e. Barney Fife) create respect in you and a desire to follow?

Not generally!  Instead, most of us tend to follow those who are calm, who walk with square shoulders, and who actually say something when they do talk (Andy Griffith).

We are attracted to those who talk slow and low and who are fair in their dealing. We are looking for signals of strength, calmness, power and leadership. We are looking for the relaxed movement and calm face that signals a nonthreatening clarity of purpose. And when we find those, what is generally triggered within us is some degree of followship -- the willingness to take and follow direction from that person.

What about the obverse?  Do we feel secure in the presence of the manic person with flailing arms and a loud and rising voice who talks a little too much?  Do we feel secure when someone is sending us too many signals all at once, or when they stand with a slouched body or move too aggressively and without calm intent?  Do we feel secure, and do we naturally want to follow this person?  Not generally!

What's my point? 

My point is that all of us read people all the time, and most of us are instinctively attracted to people like Andy Griffith, and most of us are instinctively suspect of people like Barney Fife.

Andy Griffith, of course, is a true dominant.  He threatens no one, but we feel his calm clarity of purpose.  Square shoulders, sparse body movement, clear signals, and a generally friendly and solicitous maner are paired with a low, slow voice. 

Barney Fife, on the other hand is a true submissive. This is not to say that he does not want to be dominant, only that he is incapable of actually shouldering the role for very long.

Barney is quick to brag and he frequently threatens others such as Otis, the town drunk. That said, no one takes him too seriously because he is all wind, braggadocio, and fluttering hands. When Barney gets wound up, his face become extremely animated and his voice gets a little louder and it rises in pitch. When he stands, his shoulders are narrow, and he often advances with a scuttling walk that he fancies to be a swagger. Every movement and sound betrays him. There is no real leadership here, only a thundering insecurity worn on the sleeve.

Now think about dogs. 

Do you think they are any different from people when it comes to what they are looking for in leadership?

I would posit that they are not.

What dogs want to see in their canine leaders, as well as their human owners, is a little more Andy Griffith and a little less Barney Fife.

And yes, all of this has something to with dominance and submission.  "Dominance" is not about pain or coercion, any more than submission" is about cowering or humiliation.

Dominance is about leadership. 

Submission is about followship

In the old television segment below, Barney Fife explains to Opie (the young Ron Howard) the essential difference between dogs and giraffes.

Watch Opie's face.

He's listening to all of Barney's words, but he's not really caring what Barney has to say because, at age seven, he already knows it's mindless yapping from "the little trembling" dog in the room.



Now watch who Opie does turn to.  

He turns to the "big dog," Andy Griffith, for the definitive signal about what is actually going to be done about the problem before them. 

Opie knows it's Andy that really calls the shots and that it is Andy who will actually take care of the little ones in the pack -- himself, Aunt Bea, Miss Ellie, and even the trembling and yappy Barney Fife.

In the very last few seconds of this clip we see Barney Fife change his position in response to emotional "extinguishing" from both Opie and Andy.

Yes, flashes of lightning and the sound of rain play a role here too, but watch how quickly both Opie and Andy turn a dead flat non-response to Barney's "incorrect" answer into a beaming smile for a "correct" one.

Click and treat.

Barney Fife, full of himself and with his own noise ringing in his ears, may think he drove this decision train, but if you are looking at this clip through the lens of dominance and submission, extinguishing and reward, the true tale is revealed.

.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are onto something most people don't know about consciously, but you are far too dark toward submission. Human temperament breaks down about 50:50, each playing a role vital to the other.

And it's not just that submissives follow: they are in touch with other things that dominants need, like warmth and spirituality, and a certain perception about others; they evolved to evaluate who is worthy of being followed, for instance. Great radar!

As a team, the two are unbeatable, which is why successful mated pairs are almost always one of each. In that sense, opposites very much attract, and they are far more powerful than one dominant alone or even two of the same temperament.

Another thing. Submissives can be great in many careers, and are everywhere, and can function as dominants situationally, as at the blackboard. And none but a cartoon like Barney is not dominant to a dog; and even a dominant dog, if not crazy, submits to human authority if the human isn't a complete ninny too.

If is fashionable to be dominant, and many are faking it. But, as I say, it breaks down about 50:50, and has to for our species to succeed.

Sue said...

This is one of your brightest articles ever, Patrick. I'd like to hand it out to my students... just wish it were possible to embed video into a photocopy. :) Nicely done!

PBurns said...

Dominance and Submission are NOT about male or female or "nurture" or "not nurture".

Dominance and submission are about what the dictionary says they are: leadership and followship. I have linked to the definitions in this post for that reason.

No dog or human is dominant in all roles nor are they dominant their whole life. This is as true for dogs as it is for humans. There is a flow, and that flow changes as the group or pack changes, and as the person or dog ages or gets news skills.

There is no "one-gets-you the other" thing either. We are not talking about marriage here with a "mommy" role and a "daddy" role. That's something entirely different.

More often you see dozens of people following one person (a leader-to-follower role that is not 1:1), and that person following someone else. Hirarchies, in humans at least, tend to be more than one layer deep, and again we are not talking about marriages!

If you want an interesting relationship to think about, think about the one between Andy Griffith and Aunt Bea. This was a once-dominant (Aunt Bea) aged female and a now dominant male who is related. Both are very nurturing, and very repsectful of each other, but part of the story here is about the sliding and changing relationship between them. Those changing relationships really do occur in human packs as well as in canine ones, and age and gender are a factor as well as presentation skills. In this post, we are simply talking about presentation skills -- how one type of presenation tends to instill followship, while the other does not.

PBurns said...

Glad you liked this one Sue! I started to write about body movement and doing less to signal strength and clarity, thinking a little about Clint Eastwood or other dominant" role actors as an example, but "Andy and Barney" seemed a good fit to show both sides in a known series. The video with Andy and Barney and the pack of dogs was simply a lucky and happy accident.

Richard Gilbert said...

No, of course it's not just about male and female. I used that as an example because most people haven't noticed that in human mated pairs this applies, too, and the male isn't necessarily dominant. And yes, it is situational, as I indicated with the teaching example, and does change over time and with different people. But my point really related to the negativity of the two terms: they have too much baggage, especially submissive. Assertive and yielding might be better terms.

SecondThoughtsOptional said...

There's no animal you can handle if you're nervous, jerky, tense or angry. Calm, purposeful movements and demeanour win the day. In my role as a first-aider, if someone is hurt, I have to stay calm no matter what it is -- people need the reassurance of being attended to in a calm and purposeful manner almost more than they need any treatment (or referral).

Speaking of calm and assertive, you might like this link to a talk Cesar Millan gave earlier this year, starting at minute 42 when he's asked his opinion on the different schools of dog training.

SecondThoughtsOptional said...

I'm the idiot who can't send links:

What I meant to send was this link http://youtu.be/sqvtHcT9Czw It should start at 42 minutes but if not, then minutes 42-50 minutes are such a good distillation of how training *any training* works that they should be required watching, regardless of what a person thinks of Cesar Millan.

His send up of how people create problems for themselves (minutes 26-30) are also hilarious.

Kerry Cowman said...

Patrick,
Sorry to comment on this late but this is an important article. Confidence leadership also applies to the relationship between a herding dog and livestock. A young and/or badly bred "Barney Fife" dog disturbs the sheep or cattle more than necessary to move them. Saw it dozens of times in co-called "herding tests" to promote AKC.

Are you familiar with the late Scott Lithgow's "Training Dogs for Quiet Confident Control of Stock? While a hunting dog needs some different skills I would be curious what you think of Lithgow's book.

Respectfully,
Richard Grossman