The training dogma

There is a common misconception we should talk about:

“It's all a matter of training.”

This phrase puts a stigma on the dog and its owner, meanwhile it puts the declarant on a pedestal: I’m better because my dog doesn’t do that, and you are a bad dog keeper because yours does. This is very far from the truth, but we can still see comments on various social media like these:

You should train that dog so he would not bark like that.
A properly trained dog does not do that.
A dog cannot allow himself to do this.
With a determined and consistent owner, it is out of the question for a dog to do this.
He escapes because he is not trained.
You should show him his place.

Those who are more observant may have noticed that human social norms and implied violence have already been included in some of the statements here, but lets not dive in them deeper for the time being.
It is not uncommon for the owner of a reactive dog to burst out in crying from shame during a poorly managed walk. The dog with separation disorder receives threatening comments that blame owner. The owner of the tremulous dog is held accountable because the dog is not accustomed to some things, or the leash. The owner of a pulling or barking dog is declared unfit right away. There is ~400 owner-blaming, often arrogant, sarcastic comments for each post asking for help.
Yet no one, can be aware of what is going on in the life of a stranger and in the head of a dog they don't know.
There is no such thing as the behavior of a dog would only be a matter of training, this statement is in itself absurd.
Some dogs are more likely to herd. Others hunt small animals, keep their distance from strangers, are aggressive towards their own species.
However, genetics is not deterministic, there is no such thing as a herding gene or an aggression gene, but the interactions and expression of certain genes can increase the appearance of certain behavioral elements. Genetic predisposition and environment together determine behavior, but that doesn’t mean that genetics doesn’t play a huge role in what elements of behavior will emerge during an animal’s life. No matter how difficult it is for us to acknowledge and say this, we have little influence over it and, unfortunately, the course of the interactions between genetics and the environment is still unclear.
Early experience from the moment of conception - from the time spent in the womb to the caring behavior of the mother to the transition, first and second socialization periods - is decisive for both personality type and nervous system development and the appearance of their components, stimulus processing tolerance, irritability, binding nature, proactivity or reactivity, stoicism or neuroticism, extro- or introvertedness, pessimism or optimism. A caregiver does not always have an influence on this.
The history of learning, i.e. what kind of events, stimuli (classical conditioning), and behaviors (operant conditioning) had certain consequences in the past (perhaps this is what most commonly is referred to as training), is only one segment of an animal's behavior and hold on...we do not always and not entirely influence this. Many times we are not even aware of the consequences of a behavior for the dog, that it has received some kind of punishment or confirmation, and with that we are totally lost, what stimuli the dog's brain has combined with what experiences and emotions.
Contingencies, i.e. in a certain situation what can influence behavior and in which direction, are hard to influence, even we humans do not notice in most situations what exactly is the contingent that controls our behavior.

A dog that is afraid of fireworks, when it seeks the attention of its owner at all costs, is subject to a negative reinforcement contingent: reaching the owner’s attention and proximity is what can eliminate or dampen the fear or panic.
A dog on a leash, if it is already barking at another from a distance, is also subject to a negative reinforcement contingent: barking will cause the other dog to increase the distance, its owner to change direction, thus reducing the power of the frightening or frustrating stimulus that has existed until then.

Does the dog owner really have an influence on this in all cases? And if so, will the cessation of the contingent eliminate the root cause, i.e., the emotional background or learning history (no)?

A dog who, out of curiosity, dumps the trash and finds food in it, does so to influence a positive reinforcement contingent: because of the food found, it is likely to look into food in the future, and the abandoned, accessible trash will trigger the behavior perfectly.

Is this really comparable to fear of death, panic, and phobias?
We tend to sweep the health and physical processes off the table without thinking, as if they can't influence behavior (but if we yell at our colleagues, we we blame that on a headache, we don't feel like going to a party, we blame that on tiredness). Yet it is a dangerous terrain: there are many health problems that directly or indirectly affect behavior, either for endocrine / neurological reasons or directly due to pain, physical discomfort.

If Buddy begins to behave as an “idiot” from one moment to the next, Buddy is uneducated; it doesn’t even occur in our minds that Buddy is irritated because something hurts or he’s just tired.

And finally, compatibility: there are situations where the dog is quite simply incompatible with the environment in which he is forced to live. Preparation for the expected environment begins in the womb, the puppy's nervous system, probable behavioral responses, and personality develop according to the events experienced by the mother. This is an extremely useful thing: the animal must be able to survive where it is born.

What if the puppy of the multi-generational livestock guardian family moves into an apartment building? Or when a puppy of a herding dynasty has to coexist with twelve other dogs in a dog park for 50 square feet?

Is the dog really compatible with his environment? Do we really have an impact on that? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In the case of a dog rescued from the street or from a shelter at a young age, we have little influence. Hypothetical question: should these dogs stay in the shelter (this could be a completely different post)?

Simply put, “It's all a matter of training.” is nothing more than a harmful and hurtful reduction that ignores biology, physiology, behavior, and ultimately the other person and the other dog along with their circumstances, efforts, difficulties. A dogma that we throw in without thinking, because it is reassuring to ourselves!
The next time you see a barking dog on the street with his owner crying or want to reply to someone on facebook whose dog refuses to get in the elevator, remember that you don’t know, you can’t know exactly what’s going on with the dog or his owner.
It is very easy to judge, but it is very useful to understand.

(((this post is not about irresponsible dog handlers, aggressive dogs walking without a leash, not picked up dog poop or any other mistreated situations)))).