08/31/2026
A dog owner tells me, 'I called him in from the yard. He looked right at me and went back to sniffing. He knew what I wanted. He was just being stubborn.' Most of us understand exactly what the owner means, and we might describe the same moment in much the same way. The observation and the explanation have been folded together so naturally that they sound like one thing.
The person called. The dog looked toward the person and continued sniffing. We can observe all of that. The dog may have heard the cue and may even have responded to it many times before, but 'stubborn' is still not something we observed. It is a judgment about why the dog continued sniffing. For now, we do not need to replace it with another explanation. We only need to notice that an explanation has been added.
We do the same thing when we say that a dog was jealous, felt guilty, was protecting someone or wanted to be in charge. There may be real behavior underneath each of those descriptions. A dog approached while another dog was being petted. A dog lowered their body when a person entered the room. A dog stood between a person and a visitor. Then we supplied a reason. Once that reason begins to feel like something we actually witnessed, we tend to stop looking for other explanations. 'The dog is stubborn' feels settled in a way that 'I called, the dog looked at me and continued sniffing' does not. The second account leaves us with questions.
When we are trying to understand a dog’s behavior, it helps to separate what we observed from what we added ourselves. A useful test is to ask what a camera and microphone could have recorded. They could record movement, posture, direction, sound and sequence. They could not record guilt, jealousy, defiance or intention.
Try this with one recent interaction with your dog. Describe it the way you normally would, then remove everything a camera could not have captured. What remains is what you observed. What you removed contains questions you have not answered yet.