I question whether early human-dog relationships were based on anthropomorphization. It's been suggested that one of the bases for that relationship was that both humans and wolves (considered by many to be the ancestor of the domestic dog) hunted in groups by day. And it's pretty easy to see how both dogs and humans would benefit from an inter-relationship - more food to share, combined hunting, dogs' use as guard dog. In those circumstances, humans would rely on dogs precisely for their strengths as canines. Just as people who raise and train working dogs would need to understand and nurture their dogs' strengths and personalities as dogs. But anyone who trains a dog in even the basics has to understand the dog as a dog.
Though it is interesting - when I share my puppy training strategies with the friend who is raising a little girl, she often comments that she has identical strategies, such as positive reinforcement and setting up situations for the child/dog to success at learning.
What I meant was that humans began to anthropomorphize dogs relatively early in the domestication process. Dogs were given burials, mummified, wrapped in shrouds...given human treatments. They were elevated to the status of humans on some levels and in some instances, above humans to the status of gods.
Your program sucks and your partner just fell: lay down and play dead or think Feck this and do a Th3A at the end of the program: Aliona Savchenko: Definition of a competitor