Is this new method the best method available?

(From page 137 of the book)

Is this new method the best method available?

The difference is in the process steps that the dog owner must implement in order to do the therapy. Perhaps a few analogies will shed light on what I hope is the improvement.

First analogy: The car starter

Let’s take an event in the history of automobiles as an analogy, (since I am a car buff). There was a time when the engine of an automobile could only be started by turning a crank arm that was inserted into a hole in the front of the engine. The other end of the crank arm was then protruding from the front of the car, in front of the bumper. To start the car, you needed to set the camshaft in motion, to move the pistons inside the engine. This was a difficult job, to set the pistons of the engine in motion. It wasn’t better, if it was windy and raining, as it sometimes was. And on top of that, this could be very risky if the engine backfired, with the engine suddenly kicking backwards. This could, and did, lead to serious injuries. The chauffeur could break his arm, and that happened. The chauffeur (a man or a woman) could be hit in his or her head by the crank arm and be knocked out.  I guess this may even have killed someone.

That’s certainly not a good reason to get killed, prematurely. It’s not like a heroic death, dying for your fatherland or anything like that.

This certainly didn’t make car driving safer or more convenient...

Then a genius innovator named Charles P. Kettering had the idea of installing an electric motor into cars, a self-starter that would turn the engine without needing to turn a crank arm. This meant that the driver could start the engine by simply pushing a button, or turn a key, inside the car. What the electric starter did was exactly the same as the laborous and dangerous crank arm did: It moved the cam shaft and set the pistons in motion, while at the same time setting off the spark plugs, and that started the car! What a change! This was more convenient, simpler, and also much less risky. Pretty soon, all new cars came equipped with this ingenious electric motor feature.

 In fact, this innovation was one of the reasons why cars caught on and became as wide spread as they are. Before the electric starter, cars were considered too tedious and dangerous to start, and many, especially women who weren’t as physically strong as men, (this was long before the fitness revolution), didn’t see owning and operating a car as a viable option. So, the starter did the same thing, and the driver didn’t have to learn anything new, except turning a key in a switch.

Second analogy: Manual and automatic transmission in cars

Another good analogy, although not as dramatic, is the technology used to shift gears in cars. The original design is the manual transmission, where the force of the hand is used to move from one gear to another, by handling the gear shift. This is often called to drive with a stick. When the gear is being shifted, the driver also needs to push down the clutch pedal with his or her foot, and ease on the gas pedal in the same moment.

Then came the automatic transmission. It was no longer necessary to push the clutch pedal or pull or push the gear shift. All the driver needs to do is to drive the car, stepping on the gas or the brakes. The automatic transmission takes care of shifting the gears, silently and smoothly. This is a considerably easier and simpler way to drive a car.

Many people dread driving “with a stick“ and prefer the automatic transmission, even if it is a more complicated technological solution, leading to the same model of cars with automatic being more expensive than those with a manual transmission.

However, if you own for instance an Italic exotic sportscar, like a Ferrari, then installing an effortless automatic transmission, like you find in a big Cadillac or a Lincoln, into such a supercar would be the closest thing to automobile-blasphemy. The manual transmission is for some reason also much more common in Europe than in North America. So many people still choose manual transmission.

While all people agree that the electric starter is a much better solution than the crank shaft sticking out of the front of the car, then it is harder to say that the automatic transmission is, without exception, better than manual transmission. It is to a great extent a matter of choice.

Third analogy: The simple sneaker, and the sophisticated high-tech running shoe

Sneakers used to be simple and inexpensive types of shoes. Generally made of cotton (strigi), with a thin rubber soul, this was the choice of kids in the summertime. Images from the 1950’s and 1960’s show us young people wearing jeans with the bottom hem folded up, white t-shirts and plaid shirts, and sneakers.

Then came the modern, scientifically designed sneaker, or running shoe. So as not to break any trademark rules I’m not mentioning any running shoe brands, but anyone should know what I am talking about. The modern, high-tech running shoe has a much more sophisticated sole and build than the old, simple sneakers.

Then we have seen equally sophisticated basketball shoes, tennis shoes, fitness shoes, walking shoes, cross-country running shoes... and what not...

There are various kinds of materials in the soles, air cushions, shock absorbing and shock distributing special foma, and more, that has the purpose of lessening the shock on your bones and joints of the feet, hips and back when running for long distances. This greatly reduces the risk of runner’s injuries. The introduction of the high-tech sneaker gave rise to the jogging and long-distance running movement among the general population.

But the high-tech sneaker is also more expensive than the simple sneaker.

Which one is better? Well, that is a matter of personal choice. Some people still wear the simple sneakers. In their daily amble they may feel that they don’t need the expensive high-tech. Wearing the old-style sneakers can also be a fashion styling decision, to create the look of the.

I am sure that many people own both expensive, high-tech running shoes, and simple sneakers with a thin sole. I do personally.

So it is not possible to issue a final, all-encompassing ruling that the high-tech shoes are better, and simple sneakers are worse. It depends on the occasion. People are still wearing simple sneakers, and their close relatives, flat bottomed, simple shoes.

It’s a matter of choice.

The new technologies are slightly more complicated, but are designed to be simpler and easier to manage for the user

These three analogies have in common, that they were more complex and sophisticated, and should offer some clear benefits for the users, but at the same time they were more expensive to develop and manufacture, and thus would carry a higher price tag than the previous solutions.

Most people see the benefit and choose the more complex solution. Of course, the acceptance level for the electric starter rather than the dangerous crank shaft, to start cars, is 100%. No auto maker today makes a car with an internal combustion engine, and a crank shaft sticking out to start the car. That goes without saying.

The market share of the other two innovations, automatic transmission, or high-tech sneakers is somewhat more based on personal choice. But most people agree that the new solutions have clear benefits, at least in some situations.

The new way of doing nosie phobia therapy for dogs and pets, with the three unique innovations, is similary positioned in relations to the old way. The basic method is the same. What the dog or animal experiences is basically the same as in the original, classical method: The noises are heard, starting very low and increasing in volume gradually until the sounds are heard at full natural volume. (The music mix method is markedly different in the experience from both of these, however).

 The solution itself is more voluminous or complex. But the implementation itself, managing the process, should be simpler, easier, and also safer. That is compared to both the classical method and the music mix method. That is the goal, at least.

Which one is better? It will be a personal choice

But which one is better? The new WeStopFear solution by TopFauna, with the innovations I did in the implementation process design itself, or the old style, “classical“, therapy method, or the music mix method? The answer is that I cannot say, on behalf of all dog and pet owners, that one is better than the other. In the end, this is the matter of personal preference of each person who does this type of therapy for his or her dog.

So, it is not possible to give a statement that in all circumstances, the new process design of noise phobia therapy with the four, original innovations that a lot of time was spent mulling over and developing, is without exception better than the previous therapy solutions.

Of course, I personally believe that a greater percentage of people would be better off with the new process design. They would find it easier and simpler to manage. In the first stages of the method, the risk of doing harmful mistakes has been designed out of the process. It is not possible to make the mistake, unless you blatantly pick the wrong set too early. So the very clear goal is, and hopefully it is successful, that they would be more likely to finish the process correctly and successfully using the new, innovative process design. Say for instance if a thousand people or a hundred thousand (or a million people or more which is the goal) would use each basic solution, then a much greater proportion would enjoy success.

But I cannot say it directly, that one is better than the other, unless I can prove it. And I cannot prove it. I must allow each person to create his and her own opinion on that. Which is better?

My “proof“ of why I believe the new method is better, is found in detailed comparison with the previous solutions, and explanation what the engineered details are and how they work. The proof is thus based on the argument.

What do you think if you haven’t tried either one? Or if you have tried the classical method or the music mix? What I can point out, and hope, is that those interested will take a look at these arguments and explanations, which I have made available in both text, video and audio format, on the website where the new innovations are further introduced and explained.

After that, you can form your own opinion. Your opinion is as good as mine.

In the end, what people choose to do will have the final say. But all the time, any person who wants to use the old method is as free to do that as the person who wants to use the new process design. Or some other innovation that may surface later.

These basic process designs all do the same thing. What the pets experience should be mostly similar. It is just a question of what each dog, pet or horse owner thinks is more convenient.