# Interesting article



## CorvusCorax (7 November 2014)

"Nature requires all animals to avoid things. Our behavioral abilities include sophisticated ways to adapt to things that could hurt us. To remove this vital aspect of experience is like removing a vital nutrient from an animals diet."

http://clickandtreat.com/wordpress/?p=884


----------



## blackcob (7 November 2014)

Placemarking for a discussion tonight when I'm back from work - very interesting.


----------



## blackcob (7 November 2014)

Is nobody else biting then? I am going to make a straw dog argument as pointed out at the start of the article 'cos this particular bit is the only thing wot I has any experience in. 

"Science-style training has repeatedly failed to give dependable performance in the same settings. The examples of positive based failures are endless. Watch any agility competition and you will see dog after dog that will not reliably hold a stay at the start line..." etc.

Every single week I see examples of the lack of dependable performance mentioned in the article but I don't see this as a failing of positive training, it's a failure to understand and maintain the principles of dog training full stop. The people concerned think they are training in a positive way but what they are so often doing is not maintaining criteria, rewarding haphazardly and being too wary or ignorant of using non-reward markers. Of course, they're not alpha-rolling the dog or smacking it in the head with rolled up towels so it's positive training... 

Most dogs will pootle along just fine with these kind of inconsistencies but some, often the border collies, malinois etc. I see being driven almost bonkers with it - and the handler also, wondering why they can't get a consistent contact from a dog whose contact criteria are changed every time they go on the equipment. Most of the time the handler doesn't even realise they are doing it (I have been guilty of this!) 

My beef is that this slightly misunderstood use of typical positive-reward methods simply results in a dog that will do what you want it to most, but not all of the time. Aversive training done in a misunderstood fashion, though - hasn't that the potential to do far more harm? It will only take an eejit copying CM's alpha roll, neck punch etc. on the wrong dog to wind up bitten. I have also recently seen with my own eyes the result of using an electric collar on a dog and it was a bloody awful thing to witness. The former may result in a confused, pain in the arse sort of dog but not usually one at risk of nailing you or being PTS in a frothing frenzy.


----------



## stargirl88 (7 November 2014)

Black Cob I think you pretty much said what I was going to put in that last paragraph - been saying it for years!

I predominantly use positive-based training, and it is always my first port of call, but I think there is a line.

Two examples that truly baffled me...
The first: to get a dog off the sofa he shouldn't have been on, go into another room and do something interesting so the dog gets off and reinforce him for being off the sofa (WHAT!!! turf the dog off!)

The second: recently went to the clicker exp and in the program it said that if you bring your dog along with you, you can't raise your voice or correct it, as it may upset the other clicker trained dogs. I was pretty amazed, if a dog can't cope with a raised voice (that isn't even directed at them) then we've all gone a bit mad. 

I've side tracked slightly, my eyes are sore and I'm wafflin', but I think the article has some good points, especially with instinctive drift, that even the college courses are claiming that you can get round if you train correctly. You can manage it but I don't think you can ever truly over-ride it!!!


----------



## fankino04 (8 November 2014)

I often think with certain "training" models we get a bit bogged down in the language and actually start to misunderstand the message, I believe in using popositive training methods because I love my dogs and wouldn't want to hurt them or heaven forbid have them fall out of love with me (I am guilty of humanising them to an extent ) but my idea of positive training isn't to constantly give them treats for just not being naughty and being quite good. Mostly good behaviour gets a head scratch and us continuing what we were doing it our walk etc. As stated above I certainly wouldn't reward one of mine for getting on the sofa when they aren't allowed by encouraging them off it with a toy, I was helping a friend with a dog who had decided the sofa was theirs and became aggressive if you tried to get him off it so the sofa got tipped over to turf him off and he was promptly booted outside for a doggy time out - I am a big fan of the time out and have used it with great success. So if I believe in rewarding good behaviour and removing a dog from the group for bad behaviour does this mean I use positive or aversive training methods?


----------



## CorvusCorax (8 November 2014)

blackcob said:



			My beef is that this slightly misunderstood use of typical positive-reward methods simply results in a dog that will do what you want it to most, but not all of the time.
		
Click to expand...

Which is fine for a pet or a sports dog, but for a working dog, a service dog or assistance dog, could be fatal for the dog, handler or both.
Re the comment from Stargirl about the clicker expo, that boggles my mind a bit. If you never expose your dog to stress, and then one day stress happens, or for some reason you are the cause of the stress...that is hugely unfair on the dog. I've seen it myself where everything has been hearts and flowers the whole dog's life and then BOOM, their world has changed - especially when they've been led to believe they are free to choose their own behaviours. At 12 months or 24...I think that is much crueller mentally than a correcting a dog that has learned how to cope with stress.


----------



## Broodle (9 November 2014)

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

I think it's odd that the term 'aversive' is so often interpreted to mean a physical act such as an 'alpha roll' or e-collar shock.  If a positive method can be as innocuous as a click from a clicker, or praise in a high-pitched tone of voice, then surely an aversive method can be as simple as a low 'no' or a growl?  And I fail to see how such a response to a wayward dog can ever be a bad/damaging/dangerous thing.

I am waaaaaay off being any sort of expert, but I do find the notion that dogs should never be 'corrected' bizarre.  If I raised my son that way I'm pretty sure he'd turn out to be a delinquent.  I don't need to hit him to teach him the error of his ways:  much more subtle methods serve to make him realise that he has let me down .  The same applies to my dogs, who need to know that there are unpleasant consequences (at a level commensurate with the scale of the misdemeanor) to choosing to follow their instincts rather than my instructions   Of course, it'd be nicer if they never screwed up in the first place, but life's not like that is it.


----------



## california dreaming (9 November 2014)

Positive training = ADDING a stimulus to help achieve/maximise DESIRED results.

Negative training  = REMOVING a stimulus help achieve/maximise DESIRED results.


----------



## JillA (11 November 2014)

I think the lack of reliability in reinforcement based training is not the training itself, but once trained, most people don't remove the element of choice from the dog. You can condition to a point, but to remove the choice you have to enforce - so I can train a really good down stay, but at some point the dog will get bored and break the stay - unless I enforce it. Which I do by putting in an aversive of some kind against him breaking the stay until I ask him to. An aversive (or punishment if you want to call it that) can be anything the animal doesn't like - being pressed back down, water pistol, can of pebbles, citrus collar etc etc - NOT an electric collar, far too open to abuse - but you tailor it to the situation. The trick with aversives is it has to be immediate (not two seconds late, the animal may have presented a different behaviour in that 2 seconds) and it also ideally has to be unconnected to the handler in the animals mind, otherwise the animal just develops a fear of the handler. 
Years ago I was taught this by a very good trainer to stop a dog ignoring the "down" and wandering off out of reach. A second person had a rattly can of pebbles and when the dog was within reach signalled to me to tell her "down". If she didn't, the can was dropped on her. Within a couple of times she was dropping like a stone and she never ever ignored a "down" again - and she never ran off out of reach either. I had taken away her option to ignore. Sometimes with a down stay I will just go and press the dog down again, but I have enforced the stay.


----------



## Teaselmeg (11 November 2014)

My dog will stay where I put her for as long as I want her to, she does TV and film work so she has to do what I ask. She is trained using positive reinforcement only .....

Scaring a dog a dog into doing what you want is not training, it's abuse.


----------



## CorvusCorax (11 November 2014)

So, does no dog, of whatever breed, genetic predisposition, personality type, size, ever need compulsion?


----------



## Broodle (11 November 2014)

california dreaming said:



			Positive training = ADDING a stimulus to help achieve/maximise DESIRED results.

Negative training  = REMOVING a stimulus help achieve/maximise DESIRED results.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe to you, but not to me. For me:

Positive training = giving a stimulus that the dog enjoys

Negative training = giving a stimulus that the dog doesn't enjoy. 

Simples 

I still don't get how, for example, not praising/ignoring my dog while it pees off after a small furry will ever help it to learn that's not the behaviour I want. I'm sure someone will have an answer


----------



## JillA (11 November 2014)

Broodle said:



			I still don't get how, for example, not praising/ignoring my dog while it pees off after a small furry will ever help it to learn that's not the behaviour I want. I'm sure someone will have an answer 

Click to expand...

Training isn't the same as emergency measures - if you have a trained dog it won't pee off in the first place. My dogs get treats every time they come to me at the yard. Result? They are too close most of the time, to the extent of being under my feet, and so focussed on watching for the next treat they totally ignore anything tempting.  
Emergency measures are a swift "down" which should have been trained (and enforced) which can then get reinforced.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 November 2014)

This is a thread of real interest,  and an apparent though slight change of emphasis for this section.  

From the rights and the wrongs of what we do with dogs,  so we learn,  and there is no one beyond that!!  From the rights and wrongs,  so we make our mistakes,  all of us,  and providing that they aren't too catastrophic,  our dogs are mostly forgiving and offer us an eraser,  and that's Time and further attempts!  I find that with care,  our dogs can be fairly forgiving of our inadequacies! 

Alec.


----------



## california dreaming (11 November 2014)

Broodle said:



			Maybe to you, but not to me. For me:

Positive training = giving a stimulus that the dog enjoys

Negative training = giving a stimulus that the dog doesn't enjoy. 

Simples 

I still don't get how, for example, not praising/ignoring my dog while it pees off after a small furry will ever help it to learn that's not the behaviour I want. I'm sure someone will have an answer 

Click to expand...

To me giving a stimulus that the dog doesn't enjoy is called punishment.

Giving a stimulus that the dog enjoys is called reward.  Simples.


----------



## JillA (12 November 2014)

Negative reinforcement is subjecting the animal to something it doesn't like and then withdrawing it when the desired behaviour is offered - like a check chain for example. It is a very powerful tool for example when subjecting a horse to clippers. The second it stops reacting and stands still the clippers are stopped. Think of it as the animal learning how to remove the unwanted stimulus by offering the behaviour you want.
The two ways to remove unwanted behaviour are by ignoring it or subjecting it to aversion therapy (you can call it punishment if you like but that implies physical contact, whereas it can be other unwanted actions such as turning and taking home etc). Ignoring takes time and you also need to remember that some behaviours such as chasing are self reinforcing, if not by catching the prey then by producing endorphins.


----------



## Alec Swan (12 November 2014)

Would the belief that simply ignoring unwanted behaviour not very effectively reinforce,  for the dog,  that it's OK to continue?  If I have a young Gundog puppy who takes off after a hare,  then ignoring him will simply encourage further occurrences.  Once engrained,  stopping the dog will be impossible.

Alec.


----------



## CAYLA (12 November 2014)

Yes^^^ you may get away with ignoring some very basic behaviours by ignoring, but you certainly wont with those of a more serious manner, and indeed once ingrained the harder to fix. Some behaviours I woud never ignore.


----------



## JillA (12 November 2014)

Ignoring would be the scrounging at the table, or yapping at the door, and for attention seeking you can do what I call actively ignore and turn your back and walk away. Behaviour does take longer to die out if it is ignored, and you can get an "extinction burst" (trying harder before giving up) if the behaviour has been rewarded at some time in the past. So it isn't a suitable choice when there is behaviour you need to nip in the bud - that is where the experience comes in.
Like I said Alec, behaviours such as chasing are self reinforcing so ignoring would be to allow that to happen. 
The really clever way to stop that behaviour is to train another which is inconsistent with it - so a down instead of a chase, or a recall instead of s scrap - and make the stimulus for the original behaviour the cue for the replacement. So if a dog gets aggressive when other dogs come in sight, make another dog appearing the cue for the recall/down whatever. THAT is training lol.


----------



## Alec Swan (12 November 2014)

CorvusCorax said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

http://clickandtreat.com/wordpress/?p=884

Click to expand...

I've spent an hour thinking and typing and correcting and more thinking and then more typing and I've now cancelled the bulk of what I've written.

There are so many complexities within the quoted article that it would be impossible to unravel,  in but a few posts.  The canine mind is not a complex organ,  indeed the reverse,  it's a remarkably simple mechanism by which a dog reaches decisions.  One might think that we need behaviourists with degrees to understand!  The simple fact is that we don't.

This stuck in my mind;  **"She&#8217;s still doing it, more than 20 years later &#8211; and still hasn&#8217;t clicker trained a dog to any standard. Contemplate that for a moment &#8211; an expert who has never actually done what she claims is her specialty"**,  and this is the problem.  

Can anyone explain to me why the human voice needed to be replaced with a contraption which 'Clicks'?  Sorry,  but it's laughable!

I'm off on one again,  so I'm off!! 

Alec.


----------



## blackcob (12 November 2014)

This has just appeared on my FB newsfeed...


----------



## JillA (12 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Can anyone explain to me why the human voice needed to be replaced with a contraption which 'Clicks'?  Sorry,  but it's laughable!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. I can. It is conditioning a la Pavlovs dogs. The dog learns to associate the sound of the click with a reward which is going to follow it, the click is a click for two very good reasons. The first is it is an entirely consistent sound - you can use your voice, or a word but intonations vary from minute to minute. Any consistent sound will do. The other is that it is a clear and precise marker of the behaviour you want - if you are just reinforcing without the conditioned sound by the time you have got the reinforce to the dog the moment may very well have passed. Not hugely important when you are training something simple like a down, but if you are shaping small increments in a more complex behaviour you will struggle to mark the precise action you want. The click does exactly that and is followed by and linked to the treat.
It isn't laughable, it is scientifically based in the same way the all operant and classical conditioning is. HTH Alec


----------



## twiggy2 (12 November 2014)

JillA said:



			Yes. I can. It is conditioning a la Pavlovs dogs. The dog learns to associate the sound of the click with a reward which is going to follow it, the click is a click for two very good reasons. The first is it is an entirely consistent sound - you can use your voice, or a word but intonations vary from minute to minute. Any consistent sound will do. The other is that it is a clear and precise marker of the behaviour you want - if you are just reinforcing without the conditioned sound by the time you have got the reinforce to the dog the moment may very well have passed. Not hugely important when you are training something simple like a down, but if you are shaping small increments in a more complex behaviour you will struggle to mark the precise action you want. The click does exactly that and is followed by and linked to the treat.
It isn't laughable, it is scientifically based in the same way the all operant and classical conditioning is. HTH Alec
		
Click to expand...

I also allows more than one person to work with any given dog and be able to give the exact same marker as any other trainer


----------



## Alec Swan (12 November 2014)

twiggy2 said:



			I also allows more than one person to work with any given dog and be able to give the exact same marker as any other trainer
		
Click to expand...

I've yet to have any dog,  or see one for that matter,  and which was of any use,  which would respond to anyone,  but it's handler.  

Alec.


----------



## twiggy2 (12 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I've yet to have any dog,  or see one for that matter,  and which was of any use,  which would respond to anyone,  but it's handler.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

a guide dog is worked by many trainers/handlers during its lifetime just one example


----------



## Cinnamontoast (12 November 2014)

I stand (well, ok, I'm actually sitting with Zak on my lap) amazed at the change in training. Used to be that a rolled up newspaper slapped on a leg was the best thing to make the dog behave and now, one should apparently click, treat, pamper, never raise a voice. It's the same with kids! I wonder if ever the old methods will return? 

A group of lads asked my OH how long it had taken to get the youngsters to work separately and the other to stay in his spot and thinking about it, he said six months-all without a treat or a clicker in sight! Their treat is the ball then the ball being thrown/hidden again.


----------



## CorvusCorax (13 November 2014)

A clicker just acts as a marker (I use a verbal marker to let the dog know he is doing the right thing, personally I don't use a clicker as I don't have enough hands but they are handy when you have multiple trainers or handlers (I'll click someone else's dog in the exercises when the handler cannot look down or back at the dog - if the dog has sat, stood or downed quickly or is in the correct heel position or done a nice about turn) and as mentioned,  they are used for guide dogs, service dogs, search dogs etc which may be passed around multiple handlers. 

To me, the article isn't about the pros and cons of the clicker itself, it's about the belief that an animal that is prepared to withstand injury from a prey animal,  cannot or should not have to cope with any negative consequence in training,  and also the fact that a lot of the science of dog training is based on rats in boxes (including the one with the electrified floor....) , not dogs in the real world with all its various distractions. 

Does nobody else think it is unfair as a dog owner to NEVER expose a dog to stress?

Where I live, if a dog chases lifestock, it's dead. I would rather a dog is wary of the consequences of showing strong interest in sheep, than be full of lead because of my moral or ethical stance.


----------



## Dobiegirl (13 November 2014)

People are making the mistake of comparing clicker training and aversives such as electric collars with nothing in between, being strict isnt about knocking the stuffing out of your dog its having a dog that respects its owner. for me if my dogs disobey me they know there are consequences, it might be as simple as sending them out of the room into their bed or harsher a strong check on the lead with umpteen others in between. My dogs are not obedient robots and will test the boundaries, they are not an easy breed as they are very stubborn and Ive never had one from a puppy but from 18months on as rescues. Im not making excuses for myself either as Ive explored all training methods and been kicked out of positive training classes for having a dog aggressive dog, they couldnt help me and didnt want to once they saw what this dog was like but luckily for us both we found an ex police dog trainer who didnt do clicker training and help turn the dog around.

I do use a clicker, its great for training tricks, shaping a behaviour but for very ingrained behaviours it cant work as this article has explained.

CC I think if people never expose a dog to stress they are not doing their dog any favours, lots of people are wrapping their dogs in cotton wool, treating them as their babies, they are dogs and think totally different to us. Its very interesting sitting in a vets waiting room and watching how people interact with their dogs, Ive spent a lot of time lately at the vets with Diesel so have had ample opportunity to observe, its amazing how often people sit down with their dogs beside them and start reassuring their dog the minute it starts to winge, what is that teaching a dog. I just tell mine to be quiet and he is.


----------



## Booboos (13 November 2014)

I don't have a problem with the use of some aversives but I do have an issue with the paucity of human education. You would think that before deriding others on their lack of scientific understanding the author would do some basic reading himself. This would quickly allow him to discover an enormous number of studies on various aspects of dog behaviour (Lindsay's three volume summary is an excellent resource for non-specialists who want a starting point to understanding this research, McPhail's "The evolution of consciousness" is a brilliant, critical account of the emergence of various psychological and philosophical theories on animal behaviour), that Skinner's behaviourism is grossly outdated and not really the basis of clicker training other than in terms of a historical root or even practical facts such that John Fisher, one of the first trainers to develop clicker training and founder of the APDT, used aversives such as startling sounds in his training.


----------



## Dry Rot (13 November 2014)

Why is it the theorists (and especially the American theorists!) on dog training always have to make things complicated? I suspect they spend so long arguing about the definitions that they never actually get around to training anything! I stopped exporting my dogs to the USA because they are such appalling dog trainers and probably about 500 years behind Europe.  But when they come up with another bit of scientific nonsense, we all bow down and worship! <wanders off mumbling&#8230;>


----------



## CorvusCorax (13 November 2014)

I don't mind the theory when the theorists can actually train dogs to do things (or not do things) and stay in behaviour under distraction - which to me, is how we know that they know the exercise


----------



## Alec Swan (13 November 2014)

So many interesting posts,  and many that I agree with.  The relationship which we have with our dogs is such a personal matter.  In a perfect world, we'd have a dog understand our language but it's more often not a case of what we say,  but how we say it.  Yet again,  I truly believe that we need to lower our IQs and our approaches to a level which the dog will understand.  There's no lead or clicker or any other tool which will do that for us.  We need to look at the dog,  and then ourselves

There's a risk that we are all so often persuaded that the answers to the problems which beset us are found in the right 'kit'  or the tools which we use.  We are persuaded that if we consider the opinions of those who would lecture us that with a new 'tool' or a new 'approach',  we can achieve our goals.  C_C has previously,  and correctly stated that there's nothing new.  She's absolutely right,  because man's relationship with his dog hasn't changed in the last 100 years,  and it won't in the next 100 years,  either!

When we struggle with a dog,  the temptation is to look for answers,  but outside of ourselves.  When I struggle (and I do!),  I never look for any answers outside of myself.  Clicker training,  for me anyway,  will never put any relationship back on track.

Dog training has nothing at all to do with the kit or the gear which we use,  but everything to do with us.  Lead your pack,  and you will only ever need one thing!

Alec.


----------



## JillA (13 November 2014)

This discussion reminds me of many many discussions I have had about foxhunting over the years. People are polarised into one camp or the other - very few people are yet to make up their minds. and once in one camp or the other people don't change. I'm out


----------



## Dobiegirl (13 November 2014)

Its not a case of not changing my mind, Ive tried it and get better results with other methods, I can see that it can work with some dogs but the more challenging ones need a different approach. 

Its strange really when I booked my dog aggressive male Dobe into training classes(they were advertised as positive training only) I had a long telephone conversation with them about him, I held nothing back and they assured me it was a common problem and one they were used to. When I turned up for the training class and they saw him in action i was told to go and not come back, I had expected they might have said we will see you on a one to one but nothing just go and dont come back. Now if I had been made of softer stuff I might have given up but I persisted until I found the right trainer, that is why I think clicker /positive training is not the be all and end of, there are other methods.


----------



## CorvusCorax (13 November 2014)

I don't see any polarisation, I started with a clicker and moved to a verbal marker to free up my hands, and I base training on both operant and classical conditioning.
I do, though, believe that it is more fair to teach the dog what you don't want, as well as what you do want.


----------



## Dry Rot (14 November 2014)

Just curious, do those here with children go into the deep psychological analysis of teaching them not to eat their own poo (as I'm told babies do!) or start to use the potty? I'm just an old bachelor and know nothing about such things but it does take me less than 20 minutes to teach a dog to sit -- and I don't need the help of a canine behaviourist!! If my dog growls at me, my reaction is swift and instinctive and it doesn't do it again.


----------



## Booboos (14 November 2014)

I have children DryRot but I don't get your question. Toddlers do not usually eat their poo. There are different theories on potty training based both on theoretical studies about when children are psychologically and physiologically ready to learn and practical one suggesting various methods to help them learn (as well as the do nothing and it will happen when it happens camp). Similar to dog training there are a huge number of different theoretical and practical approaches to parenting. Is this what you were asking?


----------



## Dry Rot (14 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			I have children DryRot but I don't get your question. Toddlers do not usually eat their poo. There are different theories on potty training based both on theoretical studies about when children are psychologically and physiologically ready to learn and practical one suggesting various methods to help them learn (as well as the do nothing and it will happen when it happens camp). Similar to dog training there are a huge number of different theoretical and practical approaches to parenting. Is this what you were asking?
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I seem to have confused you. I will leave you to your technospeak. I have managed to successfully train dogs for over half a century by using common sense and an understanding of dogs without bothering with definitions even the scientists can't agree on. No wonder so many novices get confused and dog training is such a misunderstood subject.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 November 2014)

CorvusCorax said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

I do, though, believe that it is more fair to teach the dog what you don't want, as well as what you do want.
		
Click to expand...

Many moons ago,  an experienced and competent dog man advised me that it was better to put temptation in a dog's way,  and then correct it,  than to allow it to find out the hard way,  what's acceptable,  and what isn't.  I'm still not entirely convinced,  though I suppose that with the use of a Rabbit-pen,  with Gundogs,  that's exactly what we do.

A dog doing Protection Work,  for instance,  needs to learn NOT to attack before it learns to do so.  A lunatic on the end of the lead,  once baited,  isn't going to subsequently learn right from wrong,  and the temptation once placed before it and with no control,  is only going one way.  With Sheepdogs (another example),  if there is no established 'Stop',  then allowing the dog to go to sheep is going to end in chaos!

Dogs in 'work' and dogs in the 'home',  in my view will have no distinction.  ALL dogs need to take a courteous and obedient view of their master.  Dogs which have no intention of showing any respect to their owners won't listen to the voice,  the whistle or the clicker.  The often used term 'Working on recall',  is something which I've never understood.  Having a dog return to us is where dog training starts.

All dog training,  again in my opinion,  needs a foundation of respect.  Teaching,  or rather achieving respect is a relatively simple procedure,  BUT and it's my view that it's where many go wrong,  is that so many confusing messages are sent to the dog,  and the dog returns the compliment to the handler who fails to see it,  that it's no wonder that the poor creature becomes confused.  A dog which is only allowed on the sofa,  on a Sunday afternoon and not for the rest of the week,  will eventually learn to see its owner in a light which doesn't include respect!

Dog training isn't about some elevated theoretical extension,  it is in fact a basic and very simple process.  The canine mind isn't in the least bit complex,  but rather,  not relying upon intelligence,  or the need to think any further than the here and now,  it's a rather crude organ.

The problems arise when it involves humans.  A consistent and ordered approach (which I've yet to master!),  is the way forward,  as a start,  and then the ability to start to understand how our dogs view us,  and importantly,  why they see us as they do.  No piece of dog training equipment will ever help us achieve that.  Bonds with dogs are achieved when human and dog look at each other.

Alec.


----------



## blackcob (14 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			ALL dogs need to take a courteous and obedient view of their master. Dogs which have no intention of showing any respect to their owners won't listen to the voice,  the whistle or the clicker.  The often used term 'Working on recall',  is something which I've never understood.  Having a dog return to us is where dog training starts.
		
Click to expand...

Come to one of the big sled dog events held in Norfolk (finest trails in England  ) and I will show you a thousand dogs without the slightest inclination to recall. They have a particularly bloody-minded approach to obedience of any kind. Two of them are my greatest companions, and they show me not a tiny shred of respect!

By contrast my mum has recently acquired a cocker pup - he's a delightful little thing, handsome, easy to do, already looking for any opportunity to please. Though I am very fond of him I do find him dreadfully dull by comparison.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 November 2014)

OK so not ALL breeds!  There are breeds which are exceptions,  of course,  and amongst them would be your Sled dogs (probably all of them!),  Greyhounds (mostly!),  English Pointers (generally!),  Bloodhounds (I would imagine),  Terriers (or at least ALL of those which I've ever owned!) and there will be others.  There are those breeds which have never been bred to comply.  There was no need for obedience,  and in some it would have been counterproductive,  I suspect!

Where do you race your dogs?  Would it be in Thetford Chase?  I walked past a house very near to an arboretum,  from memory,  and they had fairly extensive kennels I seem to remember.  It was many years ago and they may well not be there any longer.

Alec.


----------



## Dry Rot (15 November 2014)

Alec, your post of 8.42 yesterday. Brilliant! I wish I had written that.

The dogs we breed and train have originated from the wolf (though the experts can't even agree on that!). Some characteristics have been enhanced, others repressed. That doesn't mean the sled dog cannot be taught instant recall, only that it might be difficult. It doesn't mean that the sight hound can't track -- it is considered a fault in sight hounds and it wouldn't exist as a fault if some didn't do it. And so on.

I suppose my Eureka moment came about 30 years ago when I realised conventional training, with all it's clever scientific theories (usually based on experiments with performing rats!) was simply misdirected. I started looking at what dogs do instinctively and closely watching dog to dog behaviour. I doubt whether many here in the UK have had that opportunity in modern times as it is expensive to keep a large private kennel of dogs.

For example, we would shoot 1,200 mountain hares in two days on the Grampians as pest control. We could have shot more but that is the maximum we could transport. Trying to train pointers and setters in these conditions was a nightmare. Sometimes a dog would chase a hare and go missing for days. But the solution is really quite simple. I "wedded" (falconry term) or "entered" (hunting) my pups to feathered game before they went anywhere near the moors. If a hare got up, I'd call the dog and run in the opposite direction, so the dog had a choice of either chasing in unfamiliar surrounds and risking getting lost or following me. If it chased the hare, I'd lie flat in the heather and occasionally blow the whistle. Then, when it came back and was within 200 yards or so, I'd stay silent until it was really worried. There's more, of course, which I am not going to explain here. I've worked a dog into a point and had a hare jump up and jump over the dog. It had so little interest in the hare that it did not blink but continued to walk in to the grouse to flush them for the Guns.

Now, for some unknown reason I have never read a scientific paper explaining that that would be the logical thing to do -- although I HAVE read every scientific paper on dog training I can lay my hands on. I doubt whether I would ever have devised my system by learning about positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement or operant conditioning! If I had bothered with these things I would still be arguing about the definitions in the laboratory!

Commonsense, observation, and practical experience. That's why a lot of very good and experienced trainers keep their mouths shut. They know how to do it but they can't explain how. I know when I see a beautiful sunset. I don't need a lecture on the refraction of light and the varying densities of the atmosphere due to changes of humidity. So, I'd suggest, stop trying to sound clever and confusing the novices with your scientific technospeak but try to instil a bit of common sense. That last commodity is certainly lacking and needs to be encouraged. Some hard culling amongst the pseudo scientists would be a good start!


----------



## blackcob (15 November 2014)

King's Forest, Alec - waiting on final confirmation but it seems very likely that the 2016 European dryland championships will be held there. 2015 is coming to Scotland, it's a brilliant time to be involved in the sport. And yes there is still a highly renowned kennel in that area, I'd give anything to get my hands on one of their dual purpose dogs.



Dry Rot said:



			That doesn't mean the sled dog cannot be taught instant recall, only that it might be difficult.
		
Click to expand...

I thought that too, before I had them! It's impossible.

Token picture of the new addition - D is deeply unimpressed.


----------



## fankino04 (15 November 2014)

Totally agree with alecs post last night and dry rots earlier, there is far too much debating about what's positive and negative reinforcement, what's operant and so on, and not enough good old fashioned common sense and doing things because they work. I have malamutes which are apparently very difficult to train and although mine are just pets so not trained to the level a gun dog for example would be they all do what they are told when they are told,  ie wait in front of their dinner till told they can have it, sit in front of the open front door without considering going through it unless told to and come back when called (the girls are a bit more laid back about how fast they come back but the boy acts like he is attached to a bungy line that you have just pulled) and none of them pull on a walk or need a dogmatic or any other contraption to walk them. As pets this is both the minimum and all that is expected from them.


----------



## Booboos (16 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			I'm sorry that I seem to have confused you. I will leave you to your technospeak. I have managed to successfully train dogs for over half a century by using common sense and an understanding of dogs without bothering with definitions even the scientists can't agree on. No wonder so many novices get confused and dog training is such a misunderstood subject.
		
Click to expand...

You've completely lost me. Are you saying my reply was too technical for you to follow? In what sense? There wasn't a single technical term in it. All I said was that there are many theoretical or scientific if you like and practical, or common sense, if you like approaches to parenting, the same as there are many approaches to dog training.

If you have intuitively found something that works for you then that is brilliant, the goal is well adjusted dogs so if you can do this all by yourself then well done you. Not sure what your beef with science is though. The whole point of scientific endeavour is to search for the truth and the only way this can be done is through critical discussions, I.e. disagreements are at the heart of any scientific project (as well as the humanities for that matter). "I know best and I was born knowing best" is fine if it works for you but you must see why it may be a less than convincing argument if you want to persuade others which scientists are interested in.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. disagreements are at the heart of any scientific project (as well as the humanities for that matter). "I know best and I was born knowing best" &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Just because D_R and I are both older than you, doesn't necessarily make us right,  and you wrong.  The problem is that having been involved with dogs,  and for many years,  we have both made our mistakes and those mistakes have led us to certain conclusions.  Those conclusions have directed us both to an understanding that the 'Dog' itself hasn't really changed,  and in truth,  neither have we (as humans and dog trainers,  that is).

The problems arise Booboos,  when we have those who achieve academic standards which will correct (or attempt to!) our previous and formed opinions,  opinions which have been gleaned from our previous successes and our mistakes too.  I really shouldn't be speaking for D_R,  and I'm happy for him to contradict me,  but for the basic format of our understanding of the canine mind to be contradicted,  and by those who all so often,  whilst learned and thoughtful,  have rarely demonstrated their abilities,  leaves us wondering at the point of argument.

I would add,  in closing,  that there are many who have also trained a 'dog or two',  who would probably agree with our argument.  For all those who would challenge the established way of understanding the dog,  my answer would always be the same;  Demonstrate to me how good you are,  compete with a dog and against your peers and THEN tell me that the established protocol is wrong,  and has always been so.

Alec.


----------



## Booboos (18 November 2014)

The scientist can lay down the same gauntlet Alec and I am not sure how you would meet his expectation. Demonstrate how good you are at designing a behavioural study on a well defined problem and producing results worthy of publication in a peer reviewed journal, or interpret a collection of fMRI scans and tell us what that means in terms of brain function, or spend a year with wild wolves and see if you can draw conclusions about domestic animals that hold up to scrutiny by fellow experts in the field.

I don't have a problem with people who have knowledge and experience in their field, but one should be aware of one's limitations and I am always sceptical of anyone who dismisses those whose entire lives are centred around seeking answers to difficult questions.

Out of interest what kinds of studies and scientific papers have you found less than useful in dog training? And I don't mean random odd balls posting their views on blogs like this guy, but actual peer reviewed work in contemporary journals and academic books. Who exactly DP you feel has corrected the kinds of views on dog training that you hold through their academic work?


----------



## Dry Rot (18 November 2014)

Just to clarify, my point is that discussing general purpose every day dog training problems in scientific terms does very little to help the ordinary pet owner and will only confuse him. Barbara Woodhouse, for all her faults, did far more good for dog training than the behaviourists will ever do.

If one of my dogs growls at me, my reaction is similar to that of a more dominant dog. I instantly and instinctively give the growler a whack! Exactly the same advice is given on HHO to owners who have a foal that attempts to kick a human. There is absolutely no need for the scientific jargon. It is simply common sense.


----------



## CorvusCorax (18 November 2014)

He's hardly a "random oddball", he and Karen Pryor popularised clicker training, even she acknowledges that, despite their differences over his use of aversives. Plus, he's trained a lot of dogs. I'd rather train my dog alongside someone who has trained a lot of different dogs successfully (and I travel a long way to do so), than someone who has written a scientific paper.
However I don't dismiss the 'basic' science that classical and operant are recognised as the main ways in which dogs learn. I don't think that's complicated at all.


----------



## Booboos (18 November 2014)

He's a random oddball in terms of his scientific credentials. He does not have a PhD in zoology, ethology, neurobiology or any related field, he has not published in any scientific journal and he has no monographs in the academic press. He borrows the language of science, relying on facts and constructing arguments, but has none of the methodologies of decent scientific discourse. Note how his article doesn't contain a single reference to the things he claims. The reason references are drilled into any student is because they allow any reader to access source materials, read them for himself, confirm or challenge your interpretation, pick up other references, etc.

He may or may not be a great trainer but he is worse than a rubbish scientist, he is someone who borrows the mantle of science to legitimise his claims but has no understanding of actual research.

Rant over


----------



## Alec Swan (19 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			He's a random oddball in terms of his scientific credentials. He does not have a PhD in zoology, ethology, neurobiology or any related field, he has not published in any scientific journal and he has no monographs in the academic press. He borrows the language of science, relying on facts and constructing arguments, but has none of the methodologies of decent scientific discourse. Note how his article doesn't contain a single reference to the things he claims. The reason references are drilled into any student is because they allow any reader to access source materials, read them for himself, confirm or challenge your interpretation, pick up other references, etc.

He may or may not be a great trainer but he is worse than a rubbish scientist, he is someone who borrows the mantle of science to legitimise his claims but has no understanding of actual research.

Rant over 

Click to expand...

Boobos,  and with genuine respect,  your post above neatly wraps up the whole question of taking a scientific and researched approach to a subject which cannot be measured,  or weighed,  or separated in to describable portions,  with any degree of accuracy,  so that any scientific approach is in itself,  flawed.  Do you apply a scientific approach to your relationships with your children?  Is our relationship with our animals **that** different?

The physical parts of a brain,  given good health,  cannot in any way be measured to assess the aptitude levels of any dog to assimilate learning,  be it secondary or human-directed,  and it cannot reflect again with any degree of accuracy,  the aspects of a dog's learning capabilities or process by previous or current stimulation.

'Odd ball' or not,  the only test of the efficacy of anyone's thoughts,  which will be reliable and honest is the simple point that;  'The proof of the pudding is in the eating',  which makes testing the arguments of others is a relatively simple process.  With such a searching criteria,  tests as to the dog's level of training can all so easily be devised.  

There has been a great deal of theory,  published over the years,  but as yet,  I fail to see how any scientific approach can possibly hope to cover all the vagaries of a canine brain,  as to form any consistent and logical path.  We may just as well apply a scientific approach to laying one brick on top of another.  We already do that,  of course,  and we call it 'Brick Laying'.  Brick Laying isn't a science,  it's a skill which is learned.

Anyway,  that's what I think!

Alec.


----------



## JillA (19 November 2014)

Okay, I just couldn't resist. 
Why is it everyone seems to think the two are mutually exclusive? And why is everyone so dyed in the wool about their own philosophy they can't learn anything new from others?
I acknowledge the science behind learning - if you look at everything you do to train an animal, be it "old school" or based in the new "theories" you will find the very same things, reinforcement of one sort or another. Check out what you do and you will find it is there, even if you haven't recognised it as such. 
Science has just formalised it so we can extend our knowledge without having to base it necessarily on a lifetimes experience. What if you don't have that experience or know anyone who does? How do you work with, say, a rescue dog with baggage? Most of the baggage has been created by inexperienced owners who don't know what they are doing - if you can tell an owner in a couple of sessions all that you have learned in a lifetime, fine. If not, you have to fall back on the theory so they can base what they do on what has been proven to actually work.
I help pet owners get the best out of their (usually no longer baby puppy) dogs. They need to know, in simple terms, what will work to get their dogs learning enough to be pleasant companions, often in a session or two because of the expense involved. A working dog trained from a puppy is a whole other ball game. 
With horses even the very best horsemen acknowledge one lifetime isn't enough to learn it all - it isn't so different with dogs. Open your minds and learn what the others have to offer, you never stop learning.


----------



## CorvusCorax (19 November 2014)

I think that's the point of the article....a lot of clicker trainers, or dog trainers in general, think any sort of aversive or aversion training is mutually exclusive with what they do, despite the fact they are working with animals, which, in a lot of cases, genetically inclined to tolerate discomfort. 

Personally speaking, my training is now going a lot better now that I understand a bit more about how dogs learn. I don't have an ology in anything and I haven't written any papers. Hope that doesn't make me a 'random oddball'!!!


----------



## Booboos (20 November 2014)

Alec fMRIs measure, follow and display brain activity. Behavioural studies infer learning patterns from suitably designed experiments. Which scientific studies on what kinds of questions have you researched and found wanting? It would help to be specific.

Of course I appeal to science in my relationship with my children, why wouldn't I? Anything from the effects of extended breast feeding to the effectiveness of different sleep training methods to the latest suppositions on SIDS and safe co-sleeping, to the neurobiology of learning. Google scholar is my friend in everything, the Cochrane Review is the place to go for help with disciplines Ian unfamiliar with.


----------



## Booboos (20 November 2014)

CorvusCorax said:



			I think that's the point of the article....a lot of clicker trainers, or dog trainers in general, think any sort of aversive or aversion training is mutually exclusive with what they do, despite the fact they are working with animals, which, in a lot of cases, genetically inclined to tolerate discomfort. 

Personally speaking, my training is now going a lot better now that I understand a bit more about how dogs learn. I don't have an ology in anything and I haven't written any papers. Hope that doesn't make me a 'random oddball'!!!
		
Click to expand...


But there are two different points that the article is mixing up:
- does aversive training work in terms of behaviour modification?
- should we use aversive training?

The scientific answer to the first question is a resounding yes, of course it works as has been shown in numerous studies.

The answer to the second question is more nuanced. What kind of aversive training? Some are so extreme that most people would find them incompatible with animal welfare. Some are mild but can be easily misapplied, both defeating the training purpose and posing a smaller welfare problem. 

A fundamental question is why do some positive reinforcement trainers reject all aversive training? As far as I understand it there are two strands to their thinking: if you get positive training wrong you just give a reward for the wrong thing, no harm done. If you get negative wrong you give a punishment for the wrong thing, harm done, so it's safer with unreliable trainers to focus on positive. The second strand is that if a behaviour can be produced with positive there is no justification to rely on aversive.

Reading science, trying to understand science and incorporating its ideas in what you have learnt through personal experience doesn't make anyone an oddball. You don't have to be a scientist to engage with science.

Appropriating scientific language without taking on scientific methodology and writing authoritative sounding articles with zero content, does. You have to engage with science to claim to have its backing.


----------



## CorvusCorax (20 November 2014)

I think it's about the individual animal.
A quivering, noise sensitive collie, and, let's take an example on here, a working bred dog genetically inclined to be 'full of himself' and bred from dogs who have the cajones to take on an adversary, will require different handling. Some may say the latter should be bred out of existence. I strongly disagree.
Some believe they don't exist, because they just haven't met one or have had any dealings with them.

You say no harm done....I've seen a lot of dogs stressed and upset because they don't know what's right or wrong because positive only training has been applied. They've been left to guess and they've not been taught to cope with any stress....but are expected to deal with very stressful situations.
But their owners are safe in the knowledge that they are Doing The Right Thing. 
Like I say, I don't think that is, as people like to say 'fair'. Not mentally, anyway.

I think the article has lots of content. Like dogs, I think it is all about the individua!!


----------



## Teaselmeg (20 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			But there are two different points that the article is mixing up:
A fundamental question is why do some positive reinforcement trainers reject all aversive training? As far as I understand it there are two strands to their thinking: if you get positive training wrong you just give a reward for the wrong thing, no harm done. If you get negative wrong you give a punishment for the wrong thing, harm done, so it's safer with unreliable trainers to focus on positive. The second strand is that if a behaviour can be produced with positive there is no justification to rely on aversive.
		
Click to expand...

This ^^^

I have seen GSD's, Akitas, Bull breeds, collies, spaniels, terriers etc etc all rehabilitated using positive training methods. Yes, different breeds have different traits bred into them, but all dogs learn the same way. 

Having seen a video by the author of the original article doing the rounds on FB, I absolutely no respect for his opinion. The video shows him whacking a golden retriever puppy on the head with a rolled up towel, to stop it jumping up. He justifies it by saying it was only a towel, the dog is then scared to go near the owner - great result !


----------



## CorvusCorax (20 November 2014)

At risk of repeating myself, do people believe that no dog, of whatever breed, genetic predisposition, personality type, size, ever needs compulsion?


----------



## CorvusCorax (20 November 2014)

Also, if we think a dog's world collapses around it, if it is hit on the head with a rolled-up towel, how do we think it will it cope with fireworks, noisy kids running around, doors slamming, waiting in line for an agility run.....but those are things that dogs are exposed to, and we expect them to cope.


----------



## Molly'sMama (20 November 2014)

Broodle said:



			Maybe to you, but not to me. For me:

Positive training = giving a stimulus that the dog enjoys

Negative training = giving a stimulus that the dog doesn't enjoy. 

Simples 

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's just not accurate I'm afraid, it doesn't matter how you interpret it. 
the stimulus a dog doesn't enjoy is a 'punishment'. not read other replies so this may have been clarified sorry


----------



## Alec Swan (21 November 2014)

CorvusCorax said:



			At risk of repeating myself, do people believe that no dog, of whatever breed, genetic predisposition, personality type, size, ever needs compulsion?
		
Click to expand...

I've just googled the word 'compulsion',  to be certain of a reply.  'Compelling' a dog to do as we wish will have a purpose at times,  but not at others.  We don't and can't compel a dog to move away from us and behave in a willing manner.  Our 'Purpose Bred' dogs fall into several categories,  those 'categories' are various,  and this is what I think;  

We have those dogs over which we have,  and maintain minimal control;  English Pointers,  Tracker dogs,  Hounds (including the Coursing Hounds),  and most certainly Sled dogs,  amongst others.  Complete compliance from such dogs would be counterproductive.

We have those dogs over which we need a 'degree' of control;  Sheepdogs,  Gundogs and those used for Protection work.  Also,  and interestingly,  there would be those dogs which are used in serious agility competitions.  TOTAL control isn't necessary,  though the animal must understand that they are part of a team,  and that they're not 'out there' to simply please themselves.  Such animals,  whilst allowed to express themselves can only do so whilst considering their companion. 

We also have those dogs which have the sole purpose of being our companions.  Compelling them to 'comply' with our wishes is generally,  unless we take on the role of a demanding bully,  a matter of being done by negotiation.  We give-and-take to a greater extent than the two previous 'types'.

Another point;  Compelling,  or Aversion are differing labels but they will be much the same thing when applied from different directions.  For those who would claim that the state of a fully trained dog can be achieved,  by the simple expedient of concentrating on what the dog does which is 'Right',  whilst ignoring the dogs transgressions,  can only have ever had dogs which have the missing ability to reason and think and arrive at conclusions.  I have never owned nor known such a dog.

As a flaw in the above points,  I'm none too sure where Guide Dogs fit in,  but that's another topic!

Alec.


----------



## Booboos (21 November 2014)

Why are we mixing up aversion and compulsion? Compulsion has nothing to do with conditioning or the positive only vs the positive and aversive debate.

Aversives in conditioning are negative reinforcement (an aversive stimulus is removed when a desired behaviour occurs thus making the behaviour more likely to be repeated) and positive punishment ( an aversive consequence follows undesirable behaviour, thus making the behaviour less likely to occur).

Compelling a dog to do something is simply directly making them do it, it has nothing to do with conditioning.


----------



## Booboos (21 November 2014)

CC if a dog is confused about right and wrong behaviour it suggests that the marker has been misapplied, shouldn't have anything to do with whether the trainer used rewards or aversives to encourage/discourage behaviours.


----------



## Dry Rot (22 November 2014)

I can see this thread is going to make a massive contribution to the understanding of dog behaviour and training&#8230;.

I rest my case!


----------



## Dry Rot (22 November 2014)

Maybe Booboos could talk us through an actual training problem and demonstrate how her science is applied in practice?  Anyone suggest a suitable problem? Perhaps the hare chasing scenario I mentioned above? If the science theory works in practice, that should be a piece of cake to do, step by step.


----------



## Booboos (23 November 2014)

Why do you call it my theory? I don't have a problem with mild aversives. Indeed withholding a reward is an aversive if we are going to be strict about definitions so any conditioning trainer will be using aversives in this way. All the clicker trainers I know do use other aversives as well like sudden noises, water and compressed air.

What is the hare chasing scenario? A dog chasing hares? I imagine there are a few different solutions. You could strengthen commands that stop the behaviour like the recall command, so you'd strengthen it by using a long line, the recall game, etc. Or you could condition a behaviour that is incompatible with chasing hares, e.g. I know a JRT who was taught to walk backwards when he saw a cat so that he would no longer chase them.


----------



## Dry Rot (23 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			Why do you call it my theory? I don't have a problem with mild aversives. Indeed withholding a reward is an aversive if we are going to be strict about definitions so any conditioning trainer will be using aversives in this way. All the clicker trainers I know do use other aversives as well like sudden noises, water and compressed air.

What is the hare chasing scenario? A dog chasing hares? I imagine there are a few different solutions. You could strengthen commands that stop the behaviour like the recall command, so you'd strengthen it by using a long line, the recall game, etc. Or you could condition a behaviour that is incompatible with chasing hares, e.g. I know a JRT who was taught to walk backwards when he saw a cat so that he would no longer chase them.
		
Click to expand...

So, can you please talk us through this? As I assume you've done it, that shouldn't be a problem.

I'd love to have had a pointer that walked backwards every time it saw a hare at a field trial. I was hoping you were going to use the scientific terminology so we could understand what some of your earlier posts were all about.


----------



## Booboos (24 November 2014)

And I assumed you knew what conditioning training was before you said it doesn't work.

OK brief account of conditioning: it is based on a couple of fundamental principles
1. Behaviour that is rewarded tends to be repeated. Rewards are anything that is perceived as such, usually food but could be toys, freedom to run, verbal praise,etc. Note that unwanted behaviour can also be rewarded by mistake, e.g. dog pulls towards the park on the lead, owner walks faster in the direction of the park, for the dog the pulling is rewarded because he gets to the park faster, for the owner it's an arm wrenching experience.

2. Behaviour that is not rewarded tends to be extinguished. By 'not rewarded' I mean omitting the reward from above or associating the behaviour with an aversive, something the dog does not like, e.g. a loud noise, a water spray, an electric collar.

Clarification: what counts as a reward or an absence of reward will vary with each dog and the trainer has to be flexible to find what suits each situation and be careful not to be inadvertently rewarding behaviours he does not want.

3. Conditioning: this is the process by which behaviour is changed by reinforcers, I.e. rewards or the absence of rewards as above. This occurs everywhere and affects animals and humans. E.g. suppose a squirrel makes it onto your outdoor table and finds a bowl of nuts, he is then more likely to search the table the next and may keep searching for weeks and weeks even though you have now hidden the nuts.

The interesting bit is that the change can be brought about by something that has nothing to do with the behaviour, I.e. An association can be made with an entirely different thing. Pavlov noticed this with his laboratory dogs. Dogs salivate when they see food, that is a direct connection between the presence of the food and the reaction, saliva. Pavlov's dogs were salivating when men in white coats walked by the cages because food was always brought in by men in white coats, I.e. The reaction reserved for food, saliva, had now been associated with a completely different thing, white coats. Training takes advantage of this by pairing behaviour with commands through the use/absence of rewards, so that salivating is now paired with white coats.


----------



## Booboos (24 November 2014)

There are four ways to affect behaviour:
1. Positive reinforcement: the reinforcement bit means that you get more of the behaviour, so this is giving a reward to get more of the behaviour. E.g. If a dog sits and you give a piece of chicken the dog is more likely to sit again for another piece of chicken.

2. Negative reinforcement: behaviour is increased when an aversive is removed or avoided. E.g. To get a dog to sit you pull its collar up and push its bottom down, when he sits you stop the collar pressure and take away your hand, I.e. Life gets easier for the dog when it sits (for anyone familiar with dually head collars this is exactly how they work).

3. Positive punishment: this aims to reduce behaviours by following them by an aversive, e.g. The dog barks and receives a shock from an electric collar so it is less likely to bark again.

4. Negative punishment: reducing behaviour by taking away some reward, e.g. The dog barks so the owner does not throw the ball.

Positive training uses 1 and 4. Some positive trainers use mild aversives in 3, e.g.loud noises, water, air. The article is disagreeing with trainers who claim that all training can be achieved through 1 and 4 without ever using 2 and 3.

The role of the clicker: the clicker is just a convenient way of marking behaviour. Marking behaviour is saying this is what I wanted and this is what you are being rewarded for, the reward is to follow. One could just say "good girl" but the click is faster, neutral and easier for many people.


----------



## Booboos (24 November 2014)

Suppose now you decide to use 1 and 4 in your training, how do you get behaviour in the first place so you can reward it? There are a variety of ways:

A. You can lure the dog into the desired behaviour, e.g. hold a piece of chicken level with a dog's nose, move it upwards and as the nose goes up the bum goes down, you have a sit, click and reward it.

B. You can exploit naturally occurring instances of the behaviour. Puppies are scared of the big wide world and are likely to come back to the owner for reassurance, click and treat every time a puppy is near you and you have the beginnings of recall.

C. Exploit the dog's natural responses. If you place your palm next to a dog's nose he is likely to sniff it. Click and treat the moment of contact and you have the beginnings of targeting. Targeting is extremely useful for training other behaviours, e.g. place your hand at your side, ask the dog to target it and walk on...you have heel work.

D. Shaping: brilliant tool for complex behaviours, basically your break down the behaviour into small parts and reward in stages. If you want to teach roll over start by rewarding a down, then a down with the head looking over the shoulder, then with a shoulder collapse, the with the left hind and front legs coming off the ground, then with the dog on her back and finally the full roll over.

E. Delayed gratification: to get more of a behaviour delay the click. For a sit stay, ask for a sit and slightly delay the click, extend the time of delay but always vary the delay. You can work on each component of the sit in turn, I.e. sometimes working on the duration, sometimes working on only square sits, sometimes working on really fast sits.

So how do you teach a dog to run backwards when it sees a cat? First you teach the dog to run backwards. How you do this depends on the dog. I taught one of mine using targeting. She was asked to follow my palm forwards and when this was well rewarded I asked her forwards and a tiny bit backwards. On the first step back I clicked and gave a jackpot (a super reward indicating a particularly desirable behaviour). Then repeated asking for more steps back and the just steps back not forwards. In time I refined the hand signal and added a word command until every time I gave the command she reliably and quickly stepped backwards.

Adding the cat: this has to be done first in a controlled environment where you can control the presence of the cat. The aim is to replace the command for run backwards with the presence of the cat. If you think about it the words 'go back' are as random to a dog as the presence of a cat, it doesn't matter what you pair, it's the conditioning that matters. Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate at white coats, but the white coats were not relevant; had the men been wearing pink coats or hats or whatever the dogs would have been conditioned to the pink coats, the hats or whatever. So you do the same with the cat as with anything else, you do what is necessary to produce the behaviour in the presence of the cat so you can reward the behaviour and strengthen its association with the cat. Here you are going against what the dog would naturally do do the conditioning process will take longer and you have to work on different aspects of it, e.g. once the dog has been conditioned to go backwards in the presence of a,stationary cat, he has to relearn with a moving cat and then a running cat. Repeat often enough and it becomes second nature.


----------



## Booboos (24 November 2014)

Alternatively you can google the three billion sites explaining conditioning, animal conditioning and dog conditioning for more details and examples. Kikopup goes to the trouble of even posting videos of all the training examples.


----------



## JillA (24 November 2014)

Dry Rot, I'd actually like to know, in detailed steps, how you train a fast recall without a reinforcer of some kind?


----------



## CorvusCorax (24 November 2014)

What about dogs who self-reward? To whom even just staring at the cat is much more gratifying than any food that can be offered? 
Or a serious livestock or vehicle chaser, who's life is in imminent danger and you don't have time to go through all the steps and repetitions?


----------



## Dry Rot (24 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			Alternatively you can google the three billion sites explaining conditioning, animal conditioning and dog conditioning for more details and examples. Kikopup goes to the trouble of even posting videos of all the training examples.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear, I seem to have ruffled someone's feathers! D:

So, I was correct when I used the word "theory"? You haven't actually trained a dog that way? So, maybe it isn't theory after all but hypothesis?


----------



## Dry Rot (24 November 2014)

JillA said:



			Dry Rot, I'd actually like to know, in detailed steps, how you train a fast recall without a reinforcer of some kind?
		
Click to expand...

I haven't a clue. I think you are confusing me with another poster. I've always managed to effect a fast recall, even when hunting a pack of 14 couple of hounds.


----------



## JillA (24 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			I haven't a clue. I think you are confusing me with another poster. I've always managed to effect a fast recall, even when hunting a pack of 14 couple of hounds.
		
Click to expand...

But how do you TRAIN it - they aren't born knowing it?


----------



## Booboos (24 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			Oh dear, I seem to have ruffled someone's feathers! D:

So, I was correct when I used the word "theory"? You haven't actually trained a dog that way? So, maybe it isn't theory after all but hypothesis?
		
Click to expand...

First of all you are welcome! While it took me a long time to type all this out for you and it was readily availablr elsewhere, your polite acknowledgement of my efforts and your gratitude made it all worth while. I don't know you in RL but you have often intimated how your great age has given you great experience; you should add good manners to your other worthwhile attributes.

Have I trained what? I have done a six month clicker trainers course with Elizabeth Kershaw, I have volunteered for a few years as an assistant trainer atlocal dog training clubs, I have trained 4 dogs  successfully and failed miserably with one, I have competed in obedience but lower levels and clicker team challenge competitions and done agility for fun. I have trained a JRT not to chase squirrels by strengthening his recall (high rewards, long line, recall game).


----------



## Booboos (24 November 2014)

CorvusCorax said:



			What about dogs who self-reward? To whom even just staring at the cat is much more gratifying than any food that can be offered? 
Or a serious livestock or vehicle chaser, who's life is in imminent danger and you don't have time to go through all the steps and repetitions?
		
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with aversives. If there is no reward that trumps the behaviour, if there is no way of interrupting the behaviour, no way of avoiding the problem situation and no underlying physical issue then aversives may well be the answer. I have used a sound aversive with great success with one dog and tried sound, water and air aversives with no success with another dog (I wasnrluctant to use shock collar with this latter dog as she is dog aggressive and in think this aversive has been known to make dog fights worse, plus it's notsomething I am trained in using).


----------



## Spudlet (24 November 2014)

JillA said:



			But how do you TRAIN it - they aren't born knowing it?
		
Click to expand...

I would also be interested in seeing an explanation of this. Booboos has created an excellent format to follow as well.


----------



## CorvusCorax (24 November 2014)

Booboos, I thought your latter responses were a lot more helpful than some of the scientific jargon that I have found online and I definitely appreciate the time you took to type it out. Bravo 

As to your last point in post #68, that's the whole tenet of classical conditioning, isn't it? A link between two things that were previously not linked in any way. My dog used to drool when he saw a clicker, which is another reason why I no longer use it, as that wasn't the association I wanted him to make 

Re compulsion, I see compulsion and aversion as the same thing really, perhaps erroneously on my part, when the dog either MUST do something or MUST NOT.

And if others took the time and showed restraint with an aversive such as an EC as you did, perhaps they would not be such a vilified piece of equipment! And yes, like a lot of toold, they can act as a stimulant as well as an aversive, as you say, if used in the wrong way and without being introduced properly as part of a long term training plan.


----------



## Spudlet (24 November 2014)

CorvusCorax said:



			Booboos, I thought your latter responses were a lot more helpful than some of the scientific jargon that I have found online and I definitely appreciate the time you took to type it out. Bravo 

As to your last point in post #68, that's the whole tenet of classical conditioning, isn't it? A link between two things that were previously not linked in any way. My dog used to drool when he saw a clicker, which is another reason why I no longer use it, as that wasn't the association I wanted him to make 

Re compulsion, I see compulsion and aversion as the same thing really, perhaps erroneously on my part, when the dog either MUST do something or MUST NOT.
		
Click to expand...

I would see compulsion as being in line with your definition, but aversion as something which is designed to associate an action with something the dog dislikes. So a loud noise, for instance, or a squirt of water that comes when the dog starts eyeballing something to chase, that kind of thing - that's what I would think of as 'an aversive'. 

BTW, How Dogs Learn by Burch and Bailey is a really good book for anyone interested in getting a clearer idea of how some of the scientific theories of learning apply to dogs. If anyone is interested.


----------



## Dry Rot (24 November 2014)

JillA said:



			But how do you TRAIN it - they aren't born knowing it?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps my dogs prefer to be with me than with whatever it was that distracted them? I suggest you watch dogs and see what makes one dog respond to another -- or not.


----------



## Spudlet (24 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			Perhaps my dogs prefer to be with me than with whatever it was that distracted them? I suggest you watch dogs and see what makes one dog respond to another -- or not.
		
Click to expand...

Goodness me, some more feathers appear to have been ruffled.


----------



## JillA (24 November 2014)

Not really an answer in the spirit of what you were asking of others DR - if you throw down a gauntlet you must expect to have to live by the same tenets. You dismiss everyone's ideas of how animals learn abut are not prepared to tell us how you think they learn. Nuff said really.


----------



## CorvusCorax (24 November 2014)

In fairness, there are a lot of pups around at the moment in the circles I move in and there is very little time spent doing any formal training with them, just conditioning them to believe that the handler is the be all and end all and being around them is the best place to be. 
Until you have that focus and attention you can't train much else, not in a solid fashion anyway.
Running up to other people and other dogs is fine, but they don't get played with or fed or fussed or 'rewarded' for leaving. It's tempting to fuss cutesie wootsie puppies when they run up to you but you are not helping, down the line. 
Pups of course have to be socialised and learn to be around other people and dogs and be comfortable with them, but not to see them as a big attraction - that is what mum or dad is meant to be.


----------



## Dry Rot (24 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			First of all you are welcome! While it took me a long time to type all this out for you and it was readily availablr elsewhere, your polite acknowledgement of my efforts and your gratitude made it all worth while. I don't know you in RL but you have often intimated how your great age has given you great experience; you should add good manners to your other worthwhile attributes.

Have I trained what? I have done a six month clicker trainers course with Elizabeth Kershaw, I have volunteered for a few years as an assistant trainer atlocal dog training clubs, I have trained 4 dogs  successfully and failed miserably with one, I have competed in obedience but lower levels and clicker team challenge competitions and done agility for fun. I have trained a JRT not to chase squirrels by strengthening his recall (high rewards, long line, recall game).
		
Click to expand...

Oh, I am the first to admit that I have zero social skills. But I am not often deliberately rude. Dog trainers, I've found, tend to be blunt. "Sit" means "Sit". It is not a polite suggestion to have a committee meeting! So I say what I mean even with humans. Sorry if you find that offensive.

But you seem to have missed the point entirely. (Incidentally, rather than typing that lot out and, as you say, it is all available on the Internet anyway, wouldn't it have been more sensible to cut and paste?).

What I was hoping for was a point by point analysis of how you tackle a specific problem, like hare chasing, with your scientific explanation of each stage. A hare gets up in front of your dog, your dog chases&#8230;.Now, what do you do next and what is the scientific term? Personally, I would hang my coat on a fence post next to where I parked the car and go home and have my tea. Ten to one, when I returned an hour later, the dog would be curled up asleep next to my coat.  I suppose even that will have a scientific term to make it less easy for us mortals to understand.

Just to repeat, The standard of dog training here in the UK is appalling and I do not think trying to explain things with a lot of long winded scientific terms (which even the scientists cannot define with any degree of consistency!) helps the situation. Normal people don't talk like that.


----------



## ester (24 November 2014)

booboos has given a point by point description of how she would deal with hare (well cat) chasing??


----------



## Booboos (24 November 2014)

DR there is nothing science can do for you when the dog runs off chasing a hare; either the dog is trained well enough not to run off or you retrain later. But your question is a bit like saying "I jumped off a cliff and never flew therefore the science of aeronautics is rubbish".


----------



## Booboos (24 November 2014)

CC attention to the handler is generally important in clicker classes. Beginners classes usually cover attention exercises, e.g. dog maintains attention on handler even when the handler waves food about, and some unwanted behaviours, like pulling on the lead, are ignored until the dog refocuses on the handler (which is then immediately rewarded).

If compulsion means making behaviour happen that tends to be against clicker principles. So let's say you want to reach a sit to a puppy, you lure him into position with food click and treat, you repeat three times and then you do nothing and wait. It is very important to wait for behaviour to be offered a the dog has to figure this out himself. Clever breeds, like collies, can identify the behaviour after one reward. Less clever breeds can take much longer, I've see Afghan hoiunds take weeks to get it. Advanced dogs will know to offer behaviours on a trial and error basis until they find the one you will reward.


----------



## Spudlet (24 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			Just to repeat, The standard of dog training here in the UK is appalling and I do not think trying to explain things with a lot of long winded scientific terms (which even the scientists cannot define with any degree of consistency!) helps the situation. Normal people don't talk like that.
		
Click to expand...

Nor does any decent dog training instructor. If I'm explaining to my class what an extinction burst is, for example, the words 'extinction' and 'burst' will not cross my lips. INstead, I explain it in terms of a vending machine, so:

Say your dog jumps up, and you don't want it to. One way to try and deal with this is to ignore the dog. (There are other ways, but we'll go with ignoring as the chosen method in this instance, as being most appropriate for this purely hypothetical dog. In a real situation, I would give them a couple of other tools too, but this is still how I would explain what this particular phenomenon is).

_If you suddenly start ignoring the dog when before you've given it attention, the problem may actually get worse before it gets better. It's like this - imagine you have fifty pence in your hand, and a vending machine has magically appeared in this field. So you bung your fifty pence in and select a calorific treat of your choice. This has worked every other time you've used a vending machine, so you fully expect to be adding to your waistline shortly.

But oh dear - the machine has taken your money, but is not spitting your sweeties out! What do you do?

Well, you might try pressing the buttons again. Then you might try pressing them really hard a few times. If that doesn't work, you might try knocking or shaking the machine. Maybe you'll even give it a good kick. Then, eventually, you'll give up and wander off.

Well, as far as your dog is concerned - YOU are the vending machine. Jumping up is the fifty pence. And your attention is the lovely treat selected. So if jumping up has always worked before, your dog is likely to give it another go. Maybe if that doesn't work, they'll have a good bark at you. But if you stick to your guns, they will give up. (Of course, they might try something else to get your attention instead, like running away with something they shouldn't have. But they won't be jumping up)._

The scientific term for that behaviour is an extinction burst. You don't have to use that to explain the concept - although some people do like to know some of the science behind what's being said - everyone learns differently. But being aware of its existence is worthwhile either way as it means you can reassure owners that what is happening is normal, and not due to their dogs being extra naughty, or them being bad handlers - both of which are real anxieties that people in dog training classes have.

That is a real example, which I have successfully used in a real setting, which was understood by the people listening.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 November 2014)

ester said:



			booboos has given a point by point description of how she would deal with hare (well cat) chasing??
		
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the same principles applied to a Greyhound which knows what a hare is,  a Collie which knows what sheep are,  or a Hound of any sort which is aware of its quarry.  

An experiment for those of the Clicker cures all school; Take a greyhound which has coursed hares,  and demonstrate to me how it is done!  Take a dog which is accustomed to Man-work,  and lets see it ignore its target.  I wouldn't attempt to stop either,  but would be interested to see those who can.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			.

If compulsion means making behaviour happen that tends to be against clicker principles. So let's say you want to reach a sit to a puppy, you lure him into position with food click and treat, you repeat three times and then you do nothing and wait. It is very important to wait for behaviour to be offered a the dog has to figure this out himself. Clever breeds, like collies, can identify the behaviour after one reward. Less clever breeds can take much longer, I've see Afghan hoiunds take weeks to get it. Advanced dogs will know to offer behaviours on a trial and error basis until they find the one you will reward.
		
Click to expand...

And this is where we will never agree.  My pups sit,  because that's what I want.  They don't do it for any reward other than gaining my approval.  For the same reason,  they walk to heal,  they gather the dummies (or the game before them),  when I blow a stop whistle and the dog is 300 yards away,  they take a direction,  either by hand signal or in the case of sheepdogs,  by an alternative whistle,  and when at full tilt and they have a sleeve (or the live article!) in their mouth,  then "Leave it" is enough.  

When you tell a dog to Sit,  do you tell the dog that he's a good boy?  I don't,  because if I did,  he'd get straight back up again.  I will offer praise to a dog who isn't too sure,  and to get him to come to me.  Offering mixed messages by praising a dog,  once he's doing as bidden,  then has him being replaced,  and doubting the praise,  or importantly,  its value.  I don't tell a dog to Sit-and-then-Stay.  Sit means stay where you are until you get another instruction.  When your dog returns to you,  are you grateful?  I'm not,  it's what I expect.  If you ever actually did any serious work with your dogs,  do you ever offer any encouragement?  I don't,  my dogs view work,  and instruction too,  as a privilege.  

Do you offer your dog praise if he deems to return to you?  I don't,  it's what I expect.  There are two things which all dogs learn,  in training,  and RIGHT from the outset,  and they are to stay where they are put,  and to return when they're called.  These are the basics of dog training and they are a discipline which is vital and one which they have to accept as being instructions that they will follow,  regardless of any temptation which is put in there way.  To accept that our dogs will acquiesce to our wishes,  and to only comply when they feel inclined is to have no understanding,  whatsoever,  of the canine mind.

I'm wrong?  Ok,  you go out in to the world of serious competition work,  display your abilities learned from a course,  and then tell all those who have reached the top of their particular tree,  that they've been wrong.  No treats will ever have a dog TRULY compliant,  when it has an alternative of greater interest.  The only thing which will overcome temptation,  for a dog,  is an understanding that it will obey our wishes.

Alec.


----------



## JillA (28 November 2014)

Have you ever been about to sit down to eat when the phone or the doorbell goes, and you know no-one is going to be calling you? But you (or at least most people will) answer it because you are conditioned to answer, even though your meal is more tempting? That is conditioning. 
I am still disappointed that people are entrenched in their two camps and don't feel that there just MIGHT be something they can learn from the other?
Why assume those who use reinforcement training only know it in theory? Does anyone know how Mary Ray trains her obedience dogs (or Pudsey) come to that - okay, not usable skills in the real world but what else are sit/stays, down/stays, recalls but usable tricks?


----------



## Alec Swan (28 November 2014)

JillA said:



			Have you ever been about to sit down to eat when the phone or the doorbell goes, and you know no-one is going to be calling you? But you (or at least most people will) answer it because you are conditioned to answer, even though your meal is more tempting? That is conditioning. 

&#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

That I accept,  and 'conditioning' can also accompany routine,  and just as much for humans as dogs.

A question for you,  and I am genuinely interested in your reply.  There is no implied attempt to trip anyone up,  you or anyone else.  When I've seen film of dogs which have been trained with the clicker-treat system,  I see dogs which are focused upon,  and almost to the point of being welded to,  their handlers.  Mostly,  it's been close and in-hand work.  Does the system work when the same dog is 50 or 100 yards away from the handler?  When a dog is required to perform a clear requirement or task,  and at a distance,  is the same level of discipline and compliance available to the handler?

Rather than encouraging a dog to perform a certain task for us,  I and many others,  are really in need of a dog which needs to be 'stopped',  rather than 'encouraged'.  A dog which needs to be controlled,  because it's performing a task which is a part of its makeup,  and the list is endless,  is in essence,  working for itself and it's operating within the parameters of control.  I have never rewarded a dog,  except at the finalising of the work which we are doing, when the animal may be at the point of being 'off his legs' with exhaustion,  and then there's that moment when we look at the dog,  the dog at us,  and a simple 'good boy',  receives a single tail-wag,  by way of recognition.  I'll admit that it's the best feeling ever,  and on occasion,  there's an acceptance and no more.  

Someone,  I can't remember who,  said that they felt that there's a difference between pet dogs in the home,  and work dogs.  I'd disagree.  I feel that whether I have a dog who lives in the kitchen,  or a kennel,  the balanced and fruitful relationships which we have with our dogs is such that it makes no difference what the dog is,  or the reasons why we keep it.  My approach has always been that I will have compliance,  and that though allowing the animal a degree of leeway,  as it ages and gains experience,  the overriding principle is that,  certainly during the learning times,  my will is what the dog needs to put,  before all else.  I'm really not sure that discipline can be instilled by any other route.  That's not that I'm not prepared to listen,  it's just that I would never feel able to consider a system of dog training in which I had no confidence.  

I believe that clicker training fails in one important and basic requirement,  it fails to allow the handler to instil discipline,  and a discipline which the dog accepts.

Alec.


----------



## JillA (28 November 2014)

I do think sending away is difficult to train with a reinforcer - it's hard to get the reinforcer to the dog at the correct moment. A clicker would help up to a certain point, it bridges the gap between the instant you want to mark the behaviour but would probably only be noticed over a short distance. Maybe that's it Alec - when you want a dog to do close work, and with gusto, reinforcement is the way to go. For sending away then you need a dog who defers to a leader? Of course if you can be a good leader for your dog (without being unkind) you will get the behaviour more likely to be offered, and once learned it will be easier for you to enforce.


----------



## Booboos (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I'd like to see the same principles applied to a Greyhound which knows what a hare is,  a Collie which knows what sheep are,  or a Hound of any sort which is aware of its quarry.  

An experiment for those of the Clicker cures all school; Take a greyhound which has coursed hares,  and demonstrate to me how it is done!  Take a dog which is accustomed to Man-work,  and lets see it ignore its target.  I wouldn't attempt to stop either,  but would be interested to see those who can.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the rather ironic point that a greyhound knows what a hare is by being conditioned and a collie knows what a sheep is by being conditioned. Anything that can be conditioned can be re-conditioned and counter-conditioned.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

Booboos said:



			You seem to be missing the rather ironic point that a greyhound knows what a hare is by being conditioned and a collie knows what a sheep is by being conditioned. Anything that can be conditioned can be re-conditioned and counter-conditioned.
		
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you.  There's an inherent condition in that there are those breeds which are very well aware of their 'purpose',  and without being introduced to it,  are very well aware of their purpose.  Have you ever seen how a non-purpose-used (that's the best definition that I can give!) Collie can sometimes react to cars,  or anything which moves?  Have you ever seen a greyhound,  often those from the show bench,  which have an inbuilt desire to chase?  Have you ever seen a dog,  one which is bred for Man-work,  which is very well aware of its intended breeding and purpose?  I would very much like to see examples of how clickers,  or anything else for that matter,  will eradicate the dog's desire to fulfil its intended use.

Alec.


----------



## JillA (29 November 2014)

"Hard wired" - i.e. characteristics which are bred into a dog - vs "learned" characteristics. As far as I am aware only learned characteristics can be unlearned, or overlaid with other learning. Hard wired are part of the genetic make up and as such are there for life, can maybe be suppressed but no more - at least, that was what was said in my training, and I haven't found anything to contradict it. If anyone has found a reinforcer powerful enough to overcome a border collie's tendency to herd, I would like to know what it is - as far as I know all we can do is direct it.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

JillA said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. a border collie's tendency to herd, &#8230;&#8230;.. - as far as I know all we can do is direct it.
		
Click to expand...

Correct.

To return to a word used previously, 'Conditioning'.  Isn't all training a case of conditioning?  Do we not Condition dogs to accept our instructions,  and our will?

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

JillA said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. a reinforcer &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

The rest of your post is accepted and correct.  However(!),  what's a 'reinforcer'?

Alec.


----------



## JillA (29 November 2014)

Lol I didn't post it to be marked - do you have any idea how arrogant that makes you sound??? 
A reinforcer is anything the animal (dog) likes and appreciates (positive) or dislikes and so appreciates when it is removed, such as pressure(negative).


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

JillA said:



			Lol I didn't post it to be marked - do you have any idea how arrogant that makes you sound??? 
A reinforcer is anything the animal (dog) likes and appreciates (positive) or dislikes and so appreciates when it is removed, such as pressure(negative).
		
Click to expand...

That certainly wasn't my intention and I wonder how you misinterpreted my thoughts.  I agree with you regarding your 'learned' and 'inherent' comments and it was a well made point.  That was what I said,  or so I thought.  I don't understand how I've 'marked' your post.  I'm not too sure about arrogance,  confused by your remarks,  certainly!  

We either approve of our dog's behaviour,  or we don't.  How we express ourselves now seems to have labels attached to it.  I continue to return to the basics of the arguments on here,  and that's that the training of a dog is being analysed (perhaps correctly),  but what is a very simple and base level thinking seems,  to me anyway,  to have been turned in to a science (I'm not suggesting by you,  but often by those who would lecture us),  and by those who lecture (again,  not you),  and if only those who lecture would demonstrate their skills,  then the arrogant and ignorant amongst us (me),  may so learn.

Alec.


----------



## CorvusCorax (29 November 2014)

I think the point of the article is that it is unfair to not teach a dog to adapt to stress as part of it's training. Because when the stress comes...you have no option but to yoink the leash to stop the dog running in front of a car and bop it in the neck....when there is loud and crashing feedback over the tannoy as you walk past....when the vet needs to stick a needle in or shave some hair off with clippers....when you're out there on the competition field and there is lots of pressure and you can't support the dog when things go wrong...that's not 'fair'. Jmo.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

C_C,  do you not think that the dog which trusts its handler,  implicitly,  will be the animal which whilst perhaps not ignoring the distractions,  will continue to focus upon it's handler?  Whilst I'm quite certain that there are those who use the more modern methods will have dogs which trust them implicitly,  my argument would be that they've achieved that state because of their relationship with their dog,  and though it may well have included the use of implements,  I would be most surprised to hear that that happy state has arrived,  because of an implement,  or a treat.  My argument remains that our relationship with our dogs is formed through our personalities,  and not tools.

I use a whistle to have a dog focus on me,  or to take a direction,  and in that sense,  a whistle,  or its usage,  is no different from a clicker,  but just as a dog doesn't learn to walk to heel because of the use of a lead,  or a whistle,  or any other tool,  so we actually train or teach dogs what's required by imposing our will,  and that's achieved through discipline.  

I find the idea that is so often promoted,  that a tool of any sort will train a dog,  to be alarming,  and there are many who rely upon such implements.  Predictably,  many who fail and have unruly and self pleasing dogs wonder why.  Jmo!

Alec.


----------



## CorvusCorax (29 November 2014)

I'm not talking about implements?! I'm talking about exposure to stress. The author is saying, if you leave that out if your training, then any trust you have with the dog will be damaged if and when you or anything else ends up causing the dog stress.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 November 2014)

CorvusCorax said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. I'm talking about exposure to stress. The author is saying, if you leave that out if your training, then any trust you have with the dog will be damaged if and when you or anything else ends up causing the dog stress.
		
Click to expand...

I've just scrubbed out a reply!  Describe to me the stress which you would consider pertinent so that I can better understand the author's point.

Alec.


----------



## Booboos (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			And this is where we will never agree.  My pups sit,  because that's what I want.  They don't do it for any reward other than gaining my approval.  For the same reason,  they walk to heal,  they gather the dummies (or the game before them),  when I blow a stop whistle and the dog is 300 yards away,  they take a direction,  either by hand signal or in the case of sheepdogs,  by an alternative whistle,  and when at full tilt and they have a sleeve (or the live article!) in their mouth,  then "Leave it" is enough.  

When you tell a dog to Sit,  do you tell the dog that he's a good boy?  I don't,  because if I did,  he'd get straight back up again.  I will offer praise to a dog who isn't too sure,  and to get him to come to me.  Offering mixed messages by praising a dog,  once he's doing as bidden,  then has him being replaced,  and doubting the praise,  or importantly,  its value.  I don't tell a dog to Sit-and-then-Stay.  Sit means stay where you are until you get another instruction.  When your dog returns to you,  are you grateful?  I'm not,  it's what I expect.  If you ever actually did any serious work with your dogs,  do you ever offer any encouragement?  I don't,  my dogs view work,  and instruction too,  as a privilege.  

Do you offer your dog praise if he deems to return to you?  I don't,  it's what I expect.  There are two things which all dogs learn,  in training,  and RIGHT from the outset,  and they are to stay where they are put,  and to return when they're called.  These are the basics of dog training and they are a discipline which is vital and one which they have to accept as being instructions that they will follow,  regardless of any temptation which is put in there way.  To accept that our dogs will acquiesce to our wishes,  and to only comply when they feel inclined is to have no understanding,  whatsoever,  of the canine mind.

I'm wrong?  Ok,  you go out in to the world of serious competition work,  display your abilities learned from a course,  and then tell all those who have reached the top of their particular tree,  that they've been wrong.  No treats will ever have a dog TRULY compliant,  when it has an alternative of greater interest.  The only thing which will overcome temptation,  for a dog,  is an understanding that it will obey our wishes.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Gaining your approval is a reward, as I said there are many different kinds of rewards.

If you want to teach a sit stay instead of a sit that's fine.

I am confused about the section on approval vs praise vs privilege. If by privilege you mean "dog wants to be near me" then that is your reward. If you mean the dog has assessed my character and finds me to be a worthwhile person to emulate (the usual meaning of being privileged to be near someone) then you are anthropomorphising to a ridiculous degree.

No one has claimed that a well trained dog is one that complies only when it feels inclined to do so.

The point of conditioning the behaviour is that it goes beyond the association with food, it becomes ingrained. Talking about dogs understanding that they should obey our wishes is again anthropomorphosizing to a ridiculous extent.


----------



## Booboos (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			That certainly wasn't my intention and I wonder how you misinterpreted my thoughts.  I agree with you regarding your 'learned' and 'inherent' comments and it was a well made point.  That was what I said,  or so I thought.  I don't understand how I've 'marked' your post.  I'm not too sure about arrogance,  confused by your remarks,  certainly!  

We either approve of our dog's behaviour,  or we don't.  How we express ourselves now seems to have labels attached to it.  I continue to return to the basics of the arguments on here,  and that's that the training of a dog is being analysed (perhaps correctly),  but what is a very simple and base level thinking seems,  to me anyway,  to have been turned in to a science (I'm not suggesting by you,  but often by those who would lecture us),  and by those who lecture (again,  not you),  and if only those who lecture would demonstrate their skills,  then the arrogant and ignorant amongst us (me),  may so learn.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

You miss the basic point that ethology is an observational science. The studies don't say "I sat in an empty room and wondered how dogs learn", they say "I tool twenty dogs, out them under x conditions and saw what happened". As for competitions plenty of. Clicker trainers compete in obedience, agility, flyball, etc. Have you ever been to a clicker challenge competition? Pretty much all the competitors use clickers there!


----------



## CorvusCorax (29 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I've just scrubbed out a reply!  Describe to me the stress which you would consider pertinent so that I can better understand the author's point.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I already have, in several posts. Stress can be leash pressure, a raised voice, loud noise,shiny floor surface, uncomfortable surface underfoot, muzzling, perceived or real threat from someone entering the home, the presence of children, other dogs.
Waiting in line for agility can be very stressful. Getting a leg shaved at the vet. Not being allowed to express themselves, supression of natural, ingrained and genetic behaviours.

Plenty of people in top level IPO (formerly Schutzhund) and ring sport and those training detection dogs use clickers, as I am sure has already been mentioned.
But they also expect their dogs to cope with stress (a detection dog may have to work in a very noisy or dangerous environment, a sport dog must go out and tackle an 'adversary') 
Which is what the article is about....


----------

