Jean Donaldson article - Dogs in Canada - Jan. 2008

[airbear]

... I agree, that is who she means when she says that. Unfortunately, she is very clear - or at least she was in the seminar I attended when I asked for clarification - that she believes all stock people use harsh adversives in training. She said they "might not do it in front of you, but they use them".

Sadly, a lot of the "purely positive" people believe this, and ask me how I can be part of a world where dogs are hanged routinely, kicked, shocked, etc. Occassionally traditional obedience folks get lumped in with the stock folks - after all, everyone knows about teaching a forced retrieve with the ear pinch.

 

While I don't deny that there probably are stockdog trainers whom I wouldn't let near my dog, I have found generally that the stockdog world is a culture of respect. Respect for the stock, respect for the dog. Not some infantilizing world where seminars focus on how Fluffy can be shaped to share the couch with Mommy.

[Shetlander]

Not some infantilizing world where seminars focus on how Fluffy can be shaped to share the couch with Mommy.

 

This sort of comment isn't any more more accurate about good clicker training/operant conditioning than when the gung-ho "purely positive" trainers trash all stock trainers for being abusive. Different styles of training have their place in the world, depending on the dog and what is being trained.

[Lenajo]

This sort of comment isn't any more more accurate about good clicker training/operant conditioning than when the gung-ho "purely positive" trainers trash all stock trainers for being abusive. Different styles of training have their place in the world, depending on the dog and what is being trained.

 

In theory, I would agree with you. However having been around a number of pure positive trainers over the last few years I have to agree with the comment by airbear.

 

If pure positive is going to make a real stand in dog training, they have *got* to start having more people out there who can showcase well behaved, well rounded trained dogs. Right now they aren't doing it, and they spend more time railing at the Cesar Milans and making excuses than addressing that problem.

[Tranquilis]

Donaldson just lifehosts a lemon brain.

OK, that made me laugh.

[airbear]

This sort of comment isn't any more more accurate about good clicker training/operant conditioning than when the gung-ho "purely positive" trainers trash all stock trainers for being abusive.

You're right, that was snotty. My bad. I will try to be more constructive.

 

Let me throw out some examples that seem to me to contradict what I have been told by clicker trainers (I have attended seminars). The straw man in question here is that the dog does what is rewarded, not out of a desire to please.

 

First example: my dog Wick likes to run across the park bench every morning on our walk. She stands/lies down in front of the bench (not on command, just on her own), waits to be released, does a 2o/2o, and runs off when I say "ok. She has never been rewarded for this, outside of an occasional "good girl". She then goes back to being a dog, sniffing, chasing Lou, whatever. I don't ask her to run across the bench, she is free to do whatever she wants (within reason) on her walk, yet every morning, she wants to run across the bench and wait to be released. There are two outcomes to performing the bench: she gets released, or she gets reprimanded for leaving the bench before her release word. So why does she do this? I can't imagine that it's something that is physically really exciting, there has never been a reward associated with this behaviour, and my other dogs don't seem to be too interested in running the bench. All I can gather is that she knows it makes me smile and that makes her happy, because she has some innate desire to please. Oh, and no, the dogwalk is not Wick's favourite piece of agility equipment. She will take a tunnel over a DW any day.

 

Second example: when I go to my friend's farm, I occasionally feed the sheep at night. I take their dog, Patch, a dog who has no real affection for me, though he knows me since I have been coming out there for years. In the house, he makes no special effort to come see me or anything. I am just another visitor to the farm. So we go out to the barn, I gather up some flakes, open the gate, and Patch holds the sheep off the feeders while I distribute the hay. When I'm done, I tell him "that'll do" and we leave the field. He seems very happy to have done the job, and he puffs up with importance. Now the clicker trainers tell me that sheep are the dog's reward, when explaining why it's not a desire to please but some patterned behaviour that makes sheepdogs do what they do. Well, Patch didn't get to do anything with the sheep. He lay in front of the feeders and glared at them, and then we left. Yet the dog is still really happy. Why? I'm thinking he knows that he did a good job (desire to please), and that's why he enjoys it.

 

Last example: at trials, we set sheep. For this, Lou and I go to the top (set-out), and bring the sheep out, then do our best to keep them in the right spot until the dog on course picks them up (the lift). If we do our job right, Lou's interaction with the sheep is minimal, and the outcome is that another dog gets to work the sheep. He returns to my side and we wait for the next set. So again, what is the extrinsic reward? Based on what I have learned from clicker trainers, the fact that Lou, through doing what he is told, does not get to work the sheep, should diminish his desire to work up top. Yet go to the set-out and you don't see him (or any of the dogs) sulking, displaying displacement behaviours, or looking anything but content. They are doing a job that was asked of them, and that's all the reward that they need.

 

Thoughts?

[Tassie]

Hi Kitch. That's interesting about the seminar yuo went to. The method with the rective dogs soudns a bit weird to me. I would have expected the sort of thing Pat Miller does at Reactive Rover camps, and which I've seen work really well in a camp here with a different trainer - i.e. reactive dogs working at a distance from the trigger, being rewarded for looking at the trigger - then gradually the reaction distance being reduced. Seems much more logical and productive to me.

 

Kristi, I think you've highlighted something interesting. I tend to think dogs please themselves - but you're right, if we have a good relationship with the dog, and/or if the dog has a strong work ethic, then what pleases the dog may very well be doing 'stuff' with us, whether it's extrinsically rewarded or not. So in your examples, Lou and Patch have the satisfaction of knowing that they're doing a job with you - even though that job did not on this occasion involve very much in the way of more active work.

 

I would classify myself as primarily a positive trainer, who does use a clicker sometimes, and marker word often. I like to think we can do that without being 'purely positive' - using shaping only. I think (with gut feeling rather than 'scientific' insight) that some people undersell what the dog brings to the training/living situation.

[Shetlander]

If pure positive is going to make a real stand in dog training, they have *got* to start having more people out there who can showcase well behaved, well rounded trained dogs.

 

You'll note I referenced good clicker trainers. There are lots of bad trainers of all camps out there. The fall out just differs a bit depending on what techniques are used. I've seen people use punishment so ineptly that their obedience dogs slunk around the ring, looking miserable. I'd throw up if that was my dog. I've also seen positive reinforcement trainers with dogs who wouldn't perform without a treat held in front of them or at least a bait bag on the handler's belt. I'd want to kill my dog if he acted like that, but really the fault would be mine for my inept training.

 

Right now they aren't doing it, and they spend more time railing at the Cesar Milans and making excuses than addressing that problem.

 

Yeah, I always feel like such a dope because I really don't think Cesar is that bad and people cite how abusive he is. He's more old school but I haven't seen anything that looked terrible on his shows. I think for the average owner, he give very clear guidelines about how to live with a dog. I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't agree with everything anyone says. He is way more into seeing dogs through dominance colored glasses than I do but I think his point about seeing dogs for dogs is very important and quickly forgotten by many owners. And I say this as someone whose dogs sleep on her bed every night (in fact the Lhasa lately has started going under the covers for part of the night).

 

The straw man in question here is that the dog does what is rewarded, not out of a desire to please.

 

I do think dogs (and people) do what is rewarding. And dogs (and people) are often rewarded by pleasing those who are important to us.

 

All I can gather is that she knows it makes me smile and that makes her happy, because she has some innate desire to please. Oh, and no, the dogwalk is not Wick's favourite piece of agility equipment. She will take a tunnel over a DW any day.

 

Not knowing Wick, my take would be a combination of some pattern training (I'm assuming you did train and reinforce 2o2o at some point) combined with enjoyment of (desire to) please you. I'd say it might even be a little joke between you two.

 

I had a hound mix with a great sense of humor (surpassed only by Quinn's) who when I called him to be brushed would take a step, then crash to the floor and writhe around as if he could no longer walk "I'm tryin', Ma. I'm tryin'. But I can't walk, Ma!". Of course this started as a commentary about my skills at brushing dogs, but made me laugh the first time he did the routine. That was all it took. Thereafter, he fell to the floor and thrashed around whenever I called him to be brushed. It always cracked me up. That was his only reward since I never treated him for the behavior and to my chagrin could not get him to perform for anyone else but me. It was our private joke.

 

So yes, I think dogs enjoy pleasing us. I do think some dogs enjoy pleasing us more than others. For those dogs who don't get great pleasure from making us happy, they can still become ace performers with the right motivation. My Lhasa is one of those. He loves to perform. Not so much to please me (though of course he likes me happy) but I do think he loves my attention and he definitely craves my treats. So my challenge is to figure out how to get him to perform happily (people tell me they love to watch him in the ring because he is so absurdly cute and cheerful) without immediate treats while doing agility or obedience. Agility was easy. Obedience takes more transitioning away from cookies.

 

Now the clicker trainers tell me that sheep are the dog's reward, when explaining why it's not a desire to please but some patterned behaviour that makes sheepdogs do what they do. Well, Patch didn't get to do anything with the sheep. He lay in front of the feeders and glared at them, and then we left. Yet the dog is still really happy. Why? I'm thinking he knows that he did a good job (desire to please), and that's why he enjoys it.

 

I think he probably does like doing a good job. And even though he didn't get to push the sheep from here to there, he still told those sheep what to do and made them wait until HE (you) said they could eat. So I do think there was an intrinsic reward for him even though it was brief and more subtle than moving the sheep. I see it the same way with Lou. Yes, his interaction with the sheep is minimal and not exciting to us but HE is still in charge of all the groups of sheep. He probably also enjoys working with you and doing what you ask, being a help. Pleasing you.

 

They are doing a job that was asked of them, and that's all the reward that they need.

 

Yes, that is their reward. The work. Working with us. Or some combination of the two. That is the case for some dogs who are very driven to do certain types of jobs. It isn't the case with all dogs. My Lhasa took an entire year of some very solid effort on my part to learn an entire formal obedience retrieve of the dumbbell. Quinn retrieved at 6 weeks and the only reward he asks is AGAIN! The only thing he loves more than retrieving is working sheep. Oh, maybe his holistic meals are in between fetch and sheep.

[chowteam]

A colleague directed me to the discussion about my Dogs in Canada piece. There’s one inaccuracy that, try as I might, I really can’t shrug off, which is my twenty years with my own border collies.

 

I had a *blast* with my border collies, loved them to pieces, did a bit of herding, slews of obedience titles, Flyball, CGC’s, SAR and a TDX. One of them was my soul mate. They both lived great lives (to 15 and 14 respectively) and I rather resent the implication from a perfect stranger that I lived "unsuccessfully" with them, simply because it is no longer my breed of choice, or that I engage in black humor about herding dogs. While it is of course perfectly appropriate (and actually really good) to disagree with my ideas, hold opposite biases, call me on my often horrific and harsh delivery, etc. etc. it is highly inappropriate to assume one knows an iota about me or my relationship with my dogs based on a remark I may have ill-advisedly made at some conference.

 

I do believe, for the record, that border collies with significant drive exhibit what is essentially a useful compulsive disorder, i.e. the bottomless desire to herd (to the point of heat stroke, in spite of lameness etc.), a very useful reinforcer indeed. They are also extremely soft insofar as it takes very little in the way of harsh voice or stern look to flatten them, sometimes in mid predatory stalk at some distance. The many I have seen do seem to like praise, though why this is is, to me, an open question. It’s lovely to romanticize one’s breed(s) but also fine not to.

 

Cheers!

 

Jean Donaldson

[Eileen Stein]

Hi Jean, welcome to the Boards.

 

it is highly inappropriate to assume one knows an iota about me or my relationship with my dogs based on a remark I may have ill-advisedly made at some conference.

 

Given the resentment you are expressing here, I hope you can understand my resentment on learning that you have claimed that I and other trainers I respect use the tools of fear and pain in our training, based on no more than the fact that we eschew the use of food and play as training devices. I think it is highly inappropriate for you to assume that you know an iota about how we train, and highly inappropriate for you to make such a false public accusation based solely on your theory that if we are not using food and play then we must be using fear and pain.

 

I do believe, for the record, that border collies with significant drive exhibit what is essentially a useful compulsive disorder, i.e. the bottomless desire to herd (to the point of heat stroke, in spite of lameness etc.), a very useful reinforcer indeed.

 

Some will work to the point of heat stroke, some will not. Nearly all have a keen desire to control livestock, but I don't really understand your statement that a compulsive disorder is a reinforcer. Not everything they are asked to do as sheepdogs is reinforcing to them -- much of what they must do is totally opposed to their strongest instincts. If you are saying that sheep are a reinforcer -- that you can train stock work by giving and withholding sheep as you would give or withhold a toy or treat -- then I strongly disagree with you. Yes, sheepdog trainers do sometimes talk in terms of "letting him have the sheep" and "not letting him have the sheep," and yes, it is sensible in many instances to let the dog continue to work the sheep when he is right and to stop him when he's wrong. But to say that this is the same as click/treat except that the reward is sheep rather than liver just disregards the complexity inherent in sheepdog training. Unless you're working with holographic sheep you can never simply withhold your reward. It's true that you can, on occasion, block access to the sheep, particularly if you are working a beginner dog in a small area. But even when you are able to do that quickly, your dog is still focused on controlling them as he tries (unsuccessfully) to get around you. He is still interacting with them, and seeing them respond to him, until you can get him and remove him from the situation, which is far from instantaneous. If sheep are "the reward," I don't see how you can say he's not getting any reward in that situation. And if you are trying to correct a dive-in or a grip, the dog has already been reinforced by that as soon as it occurs. (Consider a squirrel-chasing dog, for example -- if your dog chases squirrels, the fact that they are "taken away" by virtue of them escaping up a tree in no way discourages your dog from chasing them again next time.)

 

In a larger area, or when your dog is in certain positions, you cannot effectively get him off the sheep at all until it's way past time that any trainer would consider withdrawal of a reward to make an effective training point -- when the dog refuses to take a stop at the top of his outrun, for example. And there are times when not letting him have the sheep when he's wrong would cause negative consequences. Hence the routine observation that beginners rely too much on the down -- if it were simply a matter of withholding "the reward" when the dog is wrong, then it would always be right to down him. Another example -- a dog who starts out wrong on his outrun can be stopped and called back, and thereby not allowed to have the sheep, but if you do that more than a very few times you risk creating other outrun problems. And how do you deal with clappiness (lying down and staring at the sheep instead of walking up) by withholding the reward?

 

In short, it is an oversimplification, if not an inaccuracy, to say that sheepdogs are trained by giving or withholding sheep. Nor are they trained with fear or pain, at least not by good trainers. It is simply more complex than you think.

 

The many I have seen do seem to like praise, though why this is is, to me, an open question. It’s lovely to romanticize one’s breed(s) but also fine not to.

 

Is it possible that people who have actually trained sheepdogs to a high level might not be romanticizing, but might just have observed and experienced things you haven't? Is it possible that border collies don't fit your theoretical model very well, and that's why they're not your breed of choice?

 

One final word on the subject of "desire to please." Leaving sheep totally aside -- in a place where there are no sheep around -- if I give a command to one of my dogs that s/he has never heard before, but s/he can recognize from my tone and demeanor that it is a command, the dog will respond by offering behaviors, meanwhile watching me eagerly for feedback ("Is it this? Is it this?"). Why does s/he do that? It's not in expectation of a treat or a tug toy, because I don't use treats and toys in training. I can only conclude that s/he does it because s/he likes figuring out what I want and doing it. She enjoys it, she takes pleasure in it. And that's an inescapable observation, having no connection with romanticizing.

 

Without getting into parsing what the meaning of "please" is, that's close enough to "an innate desire to please" for me.

 

ETA: Lest this sound too harsh, I should probably add that I agree that eight of the myths you list really are myths that it's good to debunk. Also, that I think there are people who would benefit from reading The Culture Clash, and when I run across people like that, I recommend it.

[Dixie_Girl]

I don't have much to offer on this subject, but I will tell about my experience with Jackson. When we first started working on sheep, on the ride home he seemed pretty "normal" in the truck. As we move along, when we had a session that he was being a particular hard head and was getting lots of corrections and repeats of "lessons", he acted more like a dog that got caught in the garbage and was trying to make up to you. On the lessons where he was spot on, did great, followed directions, etc., on the way home he slept like a baby, and when we went in the yard at home, you could almost see his chest expand in front of the other dogs. Each time, he "got" sheep. JMO, of course, but I think a job well done was his reward, the sheep are simply his job. We go to work, and our reward is money, which is our bosses way of saying, you did good this week so here's some money! They go to work, and we reward them by saying you did good, that'll do.

[Shetlander]

As we move along, when we had a session that he was being a particular hard head and was getting lots of corrections and repeats of "lessons", he acted more like a dog that got caught in the garbage and was trying to make up to you.

 

How many corrections and what kind was Jackson getting that he would act that way? I'm confused. At Quinn's lessons, he was corrected at times, but the instructor always went to great lengths to make sure he was then able to succeed at doing what he was told and be happy in the end. In fact, the instructor made a point of ending lessons on a happy, exciting note. Quinn, unfortunately, is prone to sulking and at two of his early lessons, he shut down over corrections. The instructor responded both times by letting Quinn out of the round pen into the big field to chase sheep (to my completely ignorant eyes). This got him back in drive and he returned to the round pen, ready to resume his lesson. Thankfully, the third time Quinn started to pout, he was able to work through his frustration without needing to get in touch with his inner wolf.

 

Anyway, my point is I'm curious about why Jackson would be acting like he wanted to make up after a lesson. Maybe he's more sensitive than Quinn for all his pouting. But after every lesson, Quinn snoozed the long ride back then when we got home demanded a game of fetch. All his lessons were good lessons for him I guess.

 

Each time, he "got" sheep. JMO, of course, but I think a job well done was his reward, the sheep are simply his job. We go to work, and our reward is money, which is our bosses way of saying, you did good this week so here's some money! They go to work, and we reward them by saying you did good, that'll do.

 

I'm an ignoramus about sheep herding and Quinn only gets to lessons once in a while. But I will say that there is nothing in this world he loves more than being able to work sheep. The very first time he saw sheep was at a distance and he instantly went still as a (very intense) statue. As we moved towards the sheep, he transformed into an insanely, lunging, barking, crying dog I had never seen before. So in a sense, I think yes, Quinn believes sheep are his job but it also seems like they are his destiny. Except, alas, he lives with me and will never be a farm dog. So I think Quinn's fine with praise for a job well done, but for him the sheep and work are their own reward. There is a BC I know who has that attitude about agility ( though she is scared of sheep )

[Dixie_Girl]

Liz, Jackson is kinda weird(naturally, I don't own, nor foster "normal" dogs! LOL) If he is corrected harshly, gripping sheep, or lightly, not slowing down, while working sheep, he continues on, has never left the sheep on his own. At home, if I correct one of the other dogs, or even one of the younguns when they were here, he runs for his "hidey-hole". Totally different attitude. As far as him wanting to make up to me, it is when he "knows" he did not do well on his lessons. Maybe is reading me but I don't think so, JMO, because we always tried to get something positive out of a lesson! And he always seems to improve on the next lesson when he had a lousy one before.

 

I know what you mean about how the "anticipation" can get to them! Jackson has gotton so excited he has literally trembled!

[Eileen Stein]

But I will say that there is nothing in this world he loves more than being able to work sheep.

 

That is as it should be in a border collie, and that's how it usually is. But all that means is that you don't have to motivate them to get them to want to interact with sheep. That alone isn't enough to make them into a good sheepdog. Indeed, sometimes it's a stumbling block. There are dogs who would be twice as good if they were half as keen -- their extreme keenness overrides (or disengages?) their brains.

[Shetlander]

Liz, Jackson is kinda weird(naturally, I don't own, nor foster "normal" dogs! LOL) If he is corrected harshly, gripping sheep, or lightly, not slowing down, while working sheep, he continues on, has never left the sheep on his own.

 

Quinn has built up toughness or maybe ability to tolereate frustration I'm happy to say. He never tried to leave the sheep. Just sulked and ate sheep poop (grrr). For all his insane reaction when he first saw sheep, he does not grip though there are moments when he seems like he really, really wants to.

 

At home, if I correct one of the other dogs, or even one of the younguns when they were here, he runs for his "hidey-hole". Totally different attitude.

 

As long as it isn't him, Quinn doesn't care. Actually, if it's the Lhasa who is in trouble, he probably like to make popcorn to eat while he watched the show

 

As far as him wanting to make up to me, it is when he "knows" he did not do well on his lessons. Maybe is reading me but I don't think so, JMO, because we always tried to get something positive out of a lesson! And he always seems to improve on the next lesson when he had a lousy one before.

 

Interesting. Apparently my guy figures he is always The Mighty Quinn when it comes to sheep.

 

I know what you mean about how the "anticipation" can get to them! Jackson has gotton so excited he has literally trembled!

 

Thankfully, Quinn never repeated his lunatic first response to seeing sheep. I do sometimes notice that trembling you describe, though. I never thought I'd have so much fun watching Quinn at his sheep lessons, but one thing about living with a BC is I've learned never to say never.

[HighDesertSpice]

Catching up to this thread. Oh my. Nice to hear you chiming in, Jean D.

 

Not a *K person of any C really, your book has been helpful for me getting a grip on the basics (clicker; setting criteria, et al) and a kick to read--black humour 'n all (there must be something in the water up there in frosty Montreal).

 

Note to Boarders: If there was some kind of blanket attack on stockdog folks in the book, I missed it.

Edit: ok, who's "the colleague"?!

[stockdogranch]

There are dogs who would be twice as good if they were half as keen -- their extreme keenness overrides (or disengages?) their brains.

 

True! But, once I changed my way of looking at it and realized that this type of dog is not intentionally trying to do the wrong thing (which the person who taught me years ago would have said--you know, the dog's being bad, or not respecting you, blowing you off, or whatever), but is merely "unable to resist temptation," the whole program is way more relaxed, and I think this kind of dog is fun. And if I had my druthers, this is the type I'd pick every time!

 

A

[ShoresDog]

... I think this kind of dog is fun.

Hooray for Alli!

[Lenajo]

While it is of course perfectly appropriate (and actually really good) to disagree with my ideas, hold opposite biases, call me on my often horrific and harsh delivery, etc. etc. it is highly inappropriate to assume one knows an iota about me or my relationship with my dogs based on a remark I may have ill-advisedly made at some conference.

 

Yes, perhaps you should "clean up" your delivery. At the very least speaking so unprofessionally cheapens what good you do have to offer other trainers. After all, I went to APDT to learn training information.....and I did learn.....unfortunately what I learned was that I don't want to waste money and time to go again!

 

My definition of successfully living with Border Collies is being able to raise, train, and manage them through their lives as suitable to be in the public and private both safely and happily. They should be a pleasure to their families and those around them. And, for their own enjoyment as well as ours, to do the work that is required of them at the best level possible for the individual.

 

All dogs, and all breeds, have quirks - its how we deal with it that matters. Yes, a good end does justify the means...theory is not worth anything alone.

 

Calling this breed, or any other dog, a "lemon brain" or clearly stating at a national conference for dog trainers that they and livestock guardian dogs should considered as the true dangerous dogs (you statement, in the context as as opposed to the currently targeted bully breeds) is an excuse not to find a way to reach dog potential and discourage others who are thinking outside your lemon crate to get the job done.

 

Your comments on sheepherding, its training, and the rest have been answered brilliantly by Eileen. During the 15 years you have had 2 pet Border Collies problematic enough despite your training theories to be major parts of your book, yet I and others have had hundreds come though our hands learning with little to no major problems. So perhaps...just a little, we have an idea of what we are talking about. Just a bit.

[stockdogranch]

Hooray for Alli!

 

Actually, Alli only mildly fits this description. Trubble was the one I had in mind, the one who really taught me the "unable to resist temptation" part of the equation.

A

[chowteam]

My goodness, and here was I expecting a "well, maybe that was a *bit* out of line given my rather limited intell" before you started guns blasting. Ah well.

 

Can you at least see how it could *maybe* just *maybe* be a *little* silly to assume I've trained "two" BC's in my entire career - LOL!!! And to state such in a public forum? Ye gods. I thought I was impulsive! And all who know me wait breathlessly to hear about these severe behavior problems my dogs had in spite of my "theories" (applied operant and classical conditioning - I may now take credit for these apparently. Wow!). Can you also name my boyfriend in junior high??? Make up any name, BTW. If I differ, it can be framed as the result of my over-reliance on BF Skinner or perhaps inexperience with sheep.

 

(Very naughty there but so hard to resist . I deserve and expect no forgiveness. Bash away. I'm ducking.........)

[SoloRiver]

re: "desire to please"

 

I'd like to stay out of the, er, testier elements of this discussion and just address this by dissecting the phrase "desire to please."

 

When we say "desire to please," what we are really saying is that the dog seeks to create feelings of pleasure or happiness in us and that this is the dog's reward. By saying this, we are also saying that dogs have theory of mind, or "the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own." This is something we can't assume that dogs have; the best evidence so far suggests that only other hominoids do have it.

 

I think it is safe to say that when we are pleased, we tend to behave in ways that dogs find rewarding for one reason or another. This is not the same thing as saying dogs have an "innate desire to please." And that's not an insult, by the way. Very few humans have a reliably "innate desire to please" either -- there are not many people who would keep offering behaviors to another person just for the sake of hopefully creating feelings of pleasure or happiness in that person without getting some sort of behavioral feedback from that person.

 

I know that Solo loves me, and I love him. We have a closer, more bonded relationship than some (perhaps many) people have with their human loved ones. We have very sophisticated interactions; we "get" each other; I consider him my canine soulmate. I don't think he thinks like me, and do I think that he is sometimes, even often, motivated by rather base instincts. This doesn't diminish the quality of our relationship. One of the reasons I cherish my dogs is that they ARE different from me, and I enjoy living in the company of another species. I don't think they have an "innate desire to please" but that what they do have is close enough for me to derive the same sort of pleasure from it. I see them as what they are, and I think they are perfect as they are even if their purpose in life is not simply to make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[bcnewe2]

or clearly stating at a national conference for dog trainers that they and livestock guardian dogs should considered as the true dangerous dogs (you statement, in the context as as opposed to the currently targeted bully breeds)

 

Where did this statement come from? Maybe I'm reading it wrong? LGD's are dangerous dogs?

The 2 that I own and the many that I've been around are the farthest I've ever seen from being dangerous dogs. Unless you are a coyote or some other predator threatening their "pack". But I don’t think it’s the bully breeds that are a dangerous breed either. IMO it’s the humans that are the dangerous breed.

 

I have 4 border collies currently, and many more have passed though my home. I would never trust any of them with my 1yr old grandchild. But my LGD's are a different matter. With my growing experience in dogs, I don't think I'd trust any dog and a young child without supervision but if I had to it would be, by all means my LGD's. They are the most tender caring dogs I've ever seen.

 

Can you please expand on your theory?

 

Commenting on the desire to please phrase

I might be simplifying things but to me that means biddablilty. More words or less, it has the same meaning to me.

 

And the lemon brain idea

I've heard people say sheep are dumb, I say sheep are smart for sheep things. Same thing with dogs, I think they are extremely intelligent in dog terms, why would we expect them to be smart in people terms? For such simpleton lemon brains, we sure have a long way to go at learning to understand them. They sure aren't writing or reading books about understanding these cantaloupe brain people they live with. They seem to just understand us. Now, who's the smart ones?

 

That’s my nickels worth

Kristen

[Eileen Stein]

[Theory of mind] is something we can't assume that dogs have; the best evidence so far suggests that only other hominoids do have it.

 

Melanie, it seems to me I have come across several references in the last few years that contradict the notion that "theory of mind" is limited to hominids, although the only one I can lay hands on right now is one I've posted here previously:

 

"Last year, in the journal

American Cognition

, the behavioral biologist Thomas Burnyar described a twist in an experiment he was conducting with laboratory ravens. The birds' job was to find bits of cheese hidden in film canisters, then pry open the lids to get the food out. One raven, Hugin, was best at this, but a dominant bird, Munin, would rush over and steal his reward.

 

"So Hugin changed his strategy: when the other bird came over, he went to empty canisters, pried them open and pretended to eat. While the dominant bird poked around in the wrong place, Hugin zipped back to where the food really was. He was deceiving Munin.

 

"To do that, Hugin had to grasp that 'what I know' and 'what he knows' are different. He had to understand, on some level, that other ravens have their own individual perceptions, feelings and plans, just as he does. It was big news when scientists found evidence that apes could grasp this. That some birds can as well is even more remarkable." N.Y. Times Magazine, 9/4/05, p.20

 

Many people have posted that they've seen one of their dogs successfully trick another dog in a similar way. I've seen it too.

 

However, I don't see why we have to get into theory of mind here at all. An "innate desire to please" doesn't necessarily presuppose that the dog is guessing what's in your mind, and that you are giving no outward indication of what's in your mind. When most people are pleased they generally show it in some outward way, and I'm sure that's what the dog likes and tries to produce. I'm not talking about you showing that you're pleased by giving the dog a treat -- in that case it's reasonable to assume the dog only has an innate desire for the treat. I'm talking about your showing it in a way that gives the dog no extraneous reward, but where he is certainly able to sense or observe your feeling of pleasure because you feel it. Would you really claim that dogs can't tell how others -- human or canine -- are feeling? Would you really claim your dogs can't tell when you're happy? My dogs read and react to how others (human and canine) are feeling all the time. I see them do it. They are keenly attuned to others' feelings. (Think, for example, of how often they tense up because we tense up -- how it is said that our tension "travels down the leash.") So when I feel pleased and happy, I certainly think they can tell that, and apparently they like it, and they seem to want to do things that will produce that (perceptible to them) feeling in me.

 

Jean wrote that border collies "seem to like praise." I have no problem concluding, based on my observations, that border collies DO like praise. And what is praise but an indication that we are pleased with them?

 

Very few humans have a reliably "innate desire to please" either -- there are not many people who would keep offering behaviors to another person just for the sake of hopefully creating feelings of pleasure or happiness in that person without getting some sort of behavioral feedback from that person.

 

Well, yeah, I don't think most people would persist in trying to please their spouse or sibling or friend if they couldn't tell whether they were pleasing that person or not (although we've all known some that do persist). But if by "behavioral feedback" you include being able to see or sense that the person is pleased or happy when they do something, then I think most people DO have an innate desire to please those they love.

 

I don't think he thinks like me, and do I think that he is sometimes, even often, motivated by rather base instincts. . . . I see them as what they are, and I think they are perfect as they are even if their purpose in life is not simply to make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

Okay. I too don't think my dogs think like me. I too think they are sometimes, even often, motivated by rather base instincts. I too don't see their purpose in life as simply to make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. But I do observe in them a desire to please.

[ShoresDog]

What is the difference between a desire to please and a desire to experience the atmosphere of friendliness, affection and approval that certain behaviors provoke? It seems to me that whether you're a dog or a human, they're the same thing. And some dogs are certainly very sensitive to emotions directed at them. It's not a food or play reward, but it's a positive reinforcement just the same.

 

However, there is another thing I strive for because I like the feeling -- that is the sense that I've done a really good job of something. To have that good satisfied feeling, I really don't need anyone else to be pleased. I seem to have some kind of an innate desire to do good work. (Or maybe it's just the same old desire to please, and the person I'm pleasing is myself?)

 

Hmm, do you think the dogs have an innate desire to do good work? Separate from any feedback they get from their human? Watching Pippa at Soldier Field last year, it would be tempting to think she does! Though from Bev's postings in Ask an Expert, it's clear that Pippa's trained at a very detailed level.

 

Just idle musings....

[mbc1963]

It's fascinating to see Jean Donaldson jump in here!

 

Re: "Lemon Brain:" If I recall correctly, Jean D. uses this analogy in her books to compare the size of a dog's brain to something we all recognize. I don't think she's singling out border collies, but just making a biological comparison.

I don't find it insulting. Honestly, I think lemon-sized is plenty big enough to manage some really complicated processing. My brother's parrot has a much smaller brain, and is capable of a whole lot of complicated stuff!

 

As far as "eagerness to please," I'd have to go with the people who say dogs probably have it just as much as humans do. Given that both species are social mammals, it makes sense to me that both species have some inherent wiring that makes them WANT to be successfully around others in their "pack." Usually, that would mean dogs with dogs and humans with humans, but we've broadened our boundaries, haven't we?

 

If we want to get down to raw science, we could see humans a being solely motivated by our needs: food, shelter, sex, protection of young. An alien species, studying us, could write volumes about how every little thing we do is motivated by our genetic, hard-wired need for these things. From the original need for food, our overwired brains have created gourmet cooking; the need for shelter has given us modern architecture; the need for sex has led to "Hustler" magazine; the need to protect the young has led to exclusive preschools and peewee hockey. I often sit back and think how everything my dog does is reflected in some weirdly, overly complicated system in the human world.

 

Choosing to perceive humans as doing anything out of a "desire to please" is projecting some really nice motivations on our species. I could look at almost any behavior and trace its motivation back to some sort of reward that the human gets for it: play nice, and you can have a cookie; be faithful and you can keep your wife and comfortable home environment; go golfing with your boss and you can get a promotion. Our brains may be far more able to connect long-term consequences to our short-term actions than dogs' brains are, but to me that's just one more example where we've finessed some really basic brain imprints. Above all, in all cultures, seems to be imprinted this primary social rule: "Follow our norms, and you can stay part of our social group. Break those norms, and you are ostracized."

 

So... I'd say dogs do things out of a "desire to please" in much the same way humans do. They are wired to live in a social environment, and their lemon brains are tricky enough to work out that some behaviors lead to positive social rewards, while others lead to uncomfortable consequences. I do think my dog likes it when I'm happy and pleased with him, in the same way any small child likes to receive praise from his or her parents. Meanwhile, the parent likes the feedback he gets when he DOES praise his small child, and willingly works to create that situation again and again. We do the dance of behaviors that please each other... and the reward is a stable social system in our little "packs."

 

Mary