09/29/2026
The five hypothesis rule is something I use constantly.
It’s simple enough.
A dog does something and before I decide why, I come up with five different explanations that could make sense.
Five separate hypotheses.
Then I start trying to kill them.
I ask questions. I look at history. I watch what happens before the behaviour and what happens after. I change what I can change and see what comes with it. I look for the things that don’t fit.
One hypothesis falls apart.
Good. Get rid of it.
Another one starts looking weak.
Get rid of that one too.
Eventually I might be left with one that explains the behaviour better than the others. Not because I’ve decided it’s the truth, but because it survived longer than everything else and the information I have keeps pointing me back to it.
So that’s where I start working.
But sometimes all five are wrong.
That’s where I think this rule really earns its keep.
You don’t pick the least s**tty explanation just because you ran out of options.
You come up with five more.
And if those five fall apart, you do it again.
There’s no rule saying the answer has to be one of the first things you thought of.
Dogs don’t owe us that convenience.
I think one of the easiest mistakes to make in this work is falling in love with your own explanation.
You see something. It reminds you of something you’ve seen before. Your brain fills in the rest and suddenly you’re no longer trying to understand the behaviour.
You’re trying to prove yourself right.
I don’t want to prove myself right.
I want to figure out what makes the most sense for the dog standing in front of me.
Those are two very different jobs.