Before You Get Your Puppy

[Pippin's person]

I am very interested in a specific citation from a reinforcement based dog trainer who claims this. Name, book, article, etc.

 

My point is that this is the premise that underlies behaviorism *as a theory of mind* not that any specific dog trainers claim it (in fact, I think authors like Karen Pryor, Pat Miller, Patricia McConnel, Jean Donaldson, Ian Dunbar etc. neatly skirt the issue of the theory's underlying premise in their writing on dog training just fine--in part because, I infer, they don't agree with it).

 

Are you asking me to actually quote Skinner, Watson, etc. on this point? I don't have those references handy, but I can give you some humdingers from behaviorist scholars in my field, Linguistics, concerning how language is "learned." Is that what you're asking for?

 

I think there are plenty of people, probably you included, who can take what it offers as a theory of training/learning and disagree with its underlying premise about the mind. I also think that's totally fine, but it doesn't work for *for me* anymore.

 

OK. What do you think I believe about cognitive processing, based on the fact that I choose to train through reinforcement, without correction?

 

Using my powers of inference, I'm assuming that you believe there is plenty of cognitive processing involved. I also infer, based on your previous posts on this topic, that you believe roughly (of course, this enters dicey territory because I am almost certainly wrong--as your question sets me up to be ) that dogs work through in some fashion (e.g. cognitively process) understanding what behaviors illicit what kinds of responses. In which case, you are not being true to behaviorism *as a theory of mind*--which is fine, of course.

 

But, why don't you say what you think is going on cognitively and what evidence you use to support it. I think this is always interesting to know more about.

 

 

I can't give a comparison, but I will say that I give pet owners a lot more credit than people typically do when it comes to the ability to learn how to reinforce effectively. Yes, it's a skill. Yes, they have to put a little thought and practice into it. Those who care to do so, even a little, tend to get it very quickly. Those who don't care, or don't want to use reinforcement - they don't learn because they have chosen not to. I'm not implying judgment on that choice in making that statement. It's just an objective observation. What, after all, will you learn to do well if you either don't care, or don't want to?

 

I guess my point was more that there is something about how the dogs actually process the information that makes a difference in terms of reinforcements being poorly timed. The motivations, intentions, desires, etc. of the handlers weren't really what I was thinking about. But, I agree, handlers don't learn what they aren't interested in, motivated by or capable of. But (and here's where my problem with behaviorism as *a theory of mind* comes in), I don't believe dogs do either.

 

One thing that I see undertaught in reinforcement based classes is how to effectively transition what the dog has learned with food to a point where the dog is completely fluent in real life situations and food no longer need be part of the picture. That's a flaw in the instruction process, though, not in the approach itself. It's not rocket science - it's just part of the process that seems to get forgotten in pet dog classes.

 

I totally agree with you there. Why do you think that's the case? I've wondered about that a lot.

[rushdoggie]

You termed it negative reinforcement. Reinforcement is that which increases a behavior, right? What behavior did Anna's correction increase? What behavior was it intended to increase?

 

the behavior expected to increase was the feet on the floor, as opposed to the counter.

[juliepoudrier]

You don't expect "the entire set of behaviors" to happen all fully formed at once, but it is impossible to work on them one at a time. I trust Julie and/or Donald will answer more fully.

I thought I did just that in post #190 above. At least I thought I addressed the idea that you can't really work on one discrete behavior involved with working stock during a particular training time.

 

As for the "entire set of behaviors" thing, the behaviors already exist in the dogs, to a greater or lesser extent, as Denise noted. What we as trainers do is shape those behaviors to help create a dynamic between dog and stock that ultimately allows for the most efficient and least stressful management of that stock. One-size-fits-all training doesn't work because they dogs are individuals and their individual genetics will determine their strengths and weaknesses. Some dogs are better at reading stock than others. Some are more responsive to pressure. Some need to learn to gather properly (despite being bred as gathering dogs) and others come out of the box beautiful gatherers but need a lot of work to learn to drive. Most dogs fall somewhere on a continuum. And as Denise noted, attitude (toward both stock and human) is a huge factor. And corrections are a necessary part of training. And since we're using corrections, we have to make sure we understand the constantly changing dynamics between dog and stock and can apply corrections and encouragement with exact timing.

 

If someone has specific questions, I can certainly try to answer them, but I don't really want to repeat myself. Any more than I already have.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

So in my post above, I wasn't trying to imply that someone like you, who trains differently than me, is not having the same rich relationship with your dogs that I have with mine, but when behavior theory is discussed and some parts of that *theory* imply certain things, including dogs as "robotic" subjects, then naturally the discussion is going to take a turn in that direction. I think where you may be getting caught up is that people like me are basically objecting to the idea that the theory explains all and people like you are perhaps taking our objections to be objections to the specific methods you use, rather than to some of the theory *behind* those methods. At least I think that's how we're managing to talk at cross purposes.

 

It's one thing to discuss the theory, as such, outside of any context at all. If that were happening, I would buy the whole "robotic" angle.

 

But when the theory is specifically applied to *dog training*, then there is an aspect to the discussion that cannot be separated out of the picture, and that is the dog.

 

Let's say, to make this really simple - that we are still talking about training a sit. Suppose, I use treats to teach my dog to sit on cue. Why did the dog sit at first? Because I was using the food to show the dog what to do, and the dog got to eat the food when he sat. Next step - dog starts to sit on his own because he knows he will get a treat for doing so. Next step - dog starts to sit when the handler says "sit" because he will get a treat when he hears "sit" and sits. Next step - dog remembers that the word "sit" is attached to sitting. Dog starts to sit when he hears "sit" because he knows that's what "sit" means. He's a smart guy - after doing this a certain amount of times in different situations with distance and distractions, etc. added in, he knows it and is no longer learning how to do it. Now in everyday life, I can cue the dog to sit, and I can reasonably expect him to do it because he now knows what "sit" means.

 

Now, if I turn around and apply behavior theory to that scenario, I can say that at one point, the likelihood that the dog would sit was increased by the reinforcer. That's how I am explaining that learning took place. I can be technical if I want to and say that the dog learned through "positive reinforcement". But in this real life scenario, of course that's not the only thing going on. The dog is learning how to relate to the person. The person is learning how to relate to the dog. Emotions are being communicated back and forth. Of course, there are two living beings relating to one another as the training takes place.

 

Keeping it to this simple example, what's objectionable? Either about the training process, or about the use of behavior theory to explain part of the reason "why" learning takes place?

[Eileen Stein]

Denise, that was an awesome post.

[ShoresDog]

Denise, that was an awesome post.

Just popping up here to agree most enthusiastically -- I had just cut and pasted her post because I wanted to save it!

 

Thanks to all who are writing such well-thought out posts, this is a very interesting thread, and I'm really enjoying it.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms Rushdoggie asked:

 

 

 

Do you mean to say that when you train a dog to work sheep, that you expect the entire set of behaviors to happen all fully formed at once? You can take an untrained dog out on a course and just start expecting the full picture? Don't you start in an area and help the dog understand one thing, then move on to increasingly more complex situation? I honestly don't know, I am asking.

 

Almost everyone starts a young dog in a small (70' dia.?) ring. The dog's behaviors do happen all at once (as do the sheep's sophisticated responses to the dog). The dog is gathering, balancing on, flanking and moving the stock - all at the same time - MORE OR LESS. One dog might have excellent stock sense from the outset another might think sheep are lunch. One dog may be "sticky" (prone to lie down and lock up) another may hate to go off its feet. Some dogs' genetics haven't kicked in and you must egg the dog on (and forgive it if it gets some wool). Another dog may intend to kill sheep and he must be corrected before he gets good at it.

 

Keen dogs first learn that the trainer exists and controls access to all the fun. With very soft, uncertain or unmotivated dogs, the trainer recedes.

 

One of the unfortunate mistakes of behaviorism is its atomistic theory of learning: one thing at a time, simples into complexes. Probably very little learning, human or dog, happens that way. The human baby is immersed in language - all language at once. It plays with sounds and laughter and discoveries confident only that one day it will all make sense.

 

That's what sheepdog trainer and dog have in common: the trust that one day the work will make sense. Working with a dog's genetics is very different (some ways easier, some ways harder) than training pet dogs to, say "heel". There is nothing in any dog's genetics that encourages it to walk on a human being's left side. It does so to please its owner or becuase it has been trained to do so.

 

The sheepdog, on the other hand, wants to do SOMETHING WITH SHEEEP - and as it will discover - fairly specific somethings. And it wants to please its handler - that's why your Border Collie is so biddable.

 

While sheepdog trainers have similar goals, they may have different training priorities: i.e. which of the dog's behaviors they reform first. While this small ring booming, buzzing confusion is going on, some of the training won't be of use until very much later.(Although the shed (splitting one or more sheep from the flock) occurs very late in training, I call my puppoies to my feet using my shed command so when the time comes . . .)

 

Speaking only for myself and noting that each of these steps may be hours, days or weeks apart and as soon as the dog gets one point, I quit and put the dog up to think about it.

 

1. Can't do anything until the dog "turns on". At first might be chasing/playing but when his tail drops and he crouches, he's started.

 

2. By physically blocking/controlling/ sometimes startling/ rarely encouraging the dog, I prove that the dog cannot work sheep without my involvement.

 

3. At some moment when the dog is about to change sides (and thus can hear) I force a down. I do this by blocking every alternative and looming over the dog until he goes off his feet. The moment he drops (or in some cases stops on his feet) I release him to work sheep. Until I have a down, I may not be able to catch the sheepdog (and no, it doesn't matter if he's obedient off sheep). Until I have a down I may attach a long line to his collar so I can step on it and reel him in.

 

4. When I have an occasional down I start pushing the circling dog back to his balance point - in this case, the distance (different for every dog) where he can think/hear my suggestions. The balance distance is fairly narrow - too close and he can't think/ too far and he loses interest or sours.

 

5. After I've got the dog off and a mostly down, I start backing rapidly around the ring so the dog can hold the sheep to me as I correct his pace.

 

6. Whenever the dog is going clockwise I'm saying "Come by" Counter-clockwise, "Away to me". At some point he'll begin to associate these commands.

 

Okay. Up to this point I don't expect the dog to do any of these things well. He may take a quarter of my"downs", grab wool a couple times and balance occasionally. He won't listen to my flanking commands and his name "Shep!" only means "Slight Pause".

 

Depending on the dogs talents, training in the small ring may take a few months to a year (and I sometimes bring a fully trained eight year old dog back into it) Next the young dog goes into a bigger area to outrun and fetch. Once he can bring the sheep without much confusion from a hundred yards or so, I'll start using him as a chore dog. The work won't be pretty but he'll gain experience and NOTHING SOURS A YOUNG DOG FASTER THAN DRILL. At this time I'd teach the drive and shed and change his voice commands to whistles. Outrun distances will increase so by the time he's three or four he should be able to outrun five or six hundred yards to sheep he cannot see directed only by my whistles.

 

EVerything is going on at once but my expectations toughen as he understand his work and his world.. The first time a young dog is in the ring, I'm lucky to get one "Down". At four years old, at 500 yards, I want him to stop - almost - every time.

 

That's how I train. Others' experience may be different. For me, stockdog training is a dance that becomes a song.

 

Donald McCaig

[Root Beer]

My point is that this is the premise that underlies behaviorism *as a theory of mind* not that any specific dog trainers claim it (in fact, I think authors like Karen Pryor, Pat Miller, Patricia McConnel, Jean Donaldson, Ian Dunbar etc. neatly skirt the issue of the theory's underlying premise in their writing on dog training just fine--in part because, I infer, they don't agree with it).

 

OK, so that affects the pet dog trainer who uses treats or other forms of reinforcement to teach basic manners how . . . ? No sarcasm here - I really want to know what you think the effect is.

 

Are you asking me to actually quote Skinner, Watson, etc. on this point? I don't have those references handy, but I can give you some humdingers from behaviorist scholars in my field, Linguistics, concerning how language is "learned." Is that what you're asking for?

 

No. To my knowledge, none of them were dog trainers who were applying behavior theory specifically to training dogs. I am specifically interested in how the theory is applied to the training of dogs, not in the theory in isolation.

 

Using my powers of inference, I'm assuming that you believe there is plenty of cognitive processing involved. I also infer, based on your previous posts on this topic, that you believe roughly (of course, this enters dicey territory because I am almost certainly wrong--as your question sets me up to be ) that dogs work through in some fashion (e.g. cognitively process) understanding what behaviors illicit what kinds of responses. In which case, you are not being true to behaviorism *as a theory of mind*--which is fine, of course.

 

I appreciate that clarification. I actually wasn't setting you up to be wrong. I really wanted to know what you thought. And it turns out that you're right about that.

 

I have a question, though. Isn't "cognitively process" just another way of saying "learning" in the truest sense of the word?

 

But, why don't you say what you think is going on cognitively and what evidence you use to support it. I think this is always interesting to know more about.

 

Can you give an example? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I agree - that would be interesting - but I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

 

I guess my point was more that there is something about how the dogs actually process the information that makes a difference in terms of reinforcements being poorly timed.

 

I would definitely agree with that. I really don't know how to explain it, but the way that dogs actually process reinforcement definitely comes into play. In fact, I would say (and Karen Pryor goes into this in her most recent book, so this isn't my idea) that they process the information differently when different types of reinforcers are used. In other words, they mentally process a click/treat in a different way than they process a treat without a click. And then, that can differ from dog to dog, as well.

 

I've often heard, "never click late". And, of course, you don't want to click late if you can help it. But it happens. And I've found that the dog still shows understanding of the exact thing that you were clicking for in most cases. I'd say that the dog is taking in the whole experience and is processing it mentally, and late reinforcement can still tell the dog that something that he or she just did was a good thing.

 

In some way, if the dog has just done a few things, and a reinforcer is given, the dog can know that it applies to everything that was just done.

 

The motivations, intentions, desires, etc. of the handlers weren't really what I was thinking about. But, I agree, handlers don't learn what they aren't interested in, motivated by or capable of. But (and here's where my problem with behaviorism as *a theory of mind* comes in), I don't believe dogs do either.

I totally agree with you there. Why do you think that's the case? I've wondered about that a lot.

 

It seems to me that if there is not some level of interest on the part of the dog, his head is simply not in the game, so to speak. Learning does require a cognitive process. If the dog's brain is simply not engaged in the task at hand, that cognitive process is not going to take place.

 

I work with a good number of people who are trying to find ways to increase their dog's interest level in particular sports. The first step is to find a way to get the dog mentally into the training process.

 

If someone came up to me on the street and said, "What do you think of the economy", I would not want to get into the conversation. It's not a topic that I really have interest in discussing any more than I have to. But if the same person came up to me and said, "How has the economy impacted your ability to train and compete with your dog", I'd be all over that conversation. Now that dogs are in it, I'm interested, so I'll go there. And, if this person has something important to say about the economy, I am going to take that in and remember it much more than if dogs were not part of the picture.

 

I'd say that dogs are the same way. When there is a lack of interest, motivation, or ability, learning will be a chore at best.

[Ooky]

So many people say the sheep are the reward - you give the sheep and take the sheep away like a treat depending on the behavior of the dog. I'm not going to say it's more complex than that because that statement even undermines what is really happening. The intrinsic reward is not just the sheep. The intrinsic reward is the proper relationship that the dog understands in its genes. The dog doesn't need to learn specific behaviors. The talented dog is learning a proper attitude and once it has that, its actions are correct, or it will seek correct behaviors on its own or with reminders from the sheep or trainer.

 

You just can't break that down into specific behaviors.

 

It was an amazing post, and this was the part I like best.

 

It explains so clearly why it puts my teeth on edge when the (not sure what term to use??) operant conditioning-based trainers/+R-P trainers say, it's the same exact thing when you work sheep, just the sheep are the reward. As if sheep could be bottled and doled out. I notice with my dog that sometimes moving them is a powerful reward, sometimes it is a source of stress when things aren't going well or he doesn't understand what is going on. Sometimes I'm doing the training, often the sheep are. Often, I'm being trained. None of it can be split up.

 

I believe, especially with border collies, this can exist to some degree off stock, too. He has been bred to want to work with me as my partner. Both of us understanding together how best to do that, and how best to communicate, is so much more to me than a quadrant of reinforcers and punishments. Not that I don't ever use those, because I do - but it doesn't help me to sit around thinking about how everything we do relates specifically to that, and more to the point, I don't believe everything does.

 

Also good points Robin, explaining behaviorism as a rather reductionist theory of mind.

[Pippin's person]

OK, so that affects the pet dog trainer who uses treats or other forms of reinforcement to teach basic manners how . . . ? No sarcasm here - I really want to know what you think the effect is.

 

I'm not sure that I can speak "generally" to pet dog trainers. For me personally, the effect was to stop worrying about figuring out the right reinforcement and the way to manage/set up an environment that worked for the dog and how to tell the dog not only that it was wrong/right, but also what I wanted it to do and instead to be more focused on what the dog seemed to bringing to the table--this being roughly what Denise called it the dog's genetics (and I'd probably add the dog's mind)--this sounds pretty ad hoc--but basically to learn the song rather than the notes.

 

I'm not trying to imply anything about any other trainer/handler--just that this was the effect for me of realizing that it didn't work to separate the premise underlying behaviorism from the tools used to train.

 

Honestly, I think for beginning pet owners, the principles used to train that are based on behavioral theory can be a great starting point. And, as Julie said in her post--I think there's a difference concerning behavioral theory as explanatory and behavioral theory as a tool box. As a tool box, it works better for some tasks than for others, IMHO.

 

No. To my knowledge, none of them were dog trainers who were applying behavior theory specifically to training dogs. I am specifically interested in how the theory is applied to the training of dogs, not in the theory in isolation.

 

I have a hard time applying the theory independently of the premises the theory is built on (and I tried for several years as I see a lot of benefits to the training tool box). Behaviorism assumes a kind of "blank slate" as a starting point and that slate gets filled up based on on-going experiences with stimulus and response. It assumes that the dog (or whatever species) doesn't come with certain innate characteristics that predispose it in certain directions--this is what Densie was talking about, I think, in terms of the dog's genetics.

 

Maybe that doesn't matter a whit for most pet dog trainers--that's fine by me. It mattered a lot to me as I've worked to understand and be more effective in the things I do with my dogs.

 

I have a question, though. Isn't "cognitively process" just another way of saying "learning" in the truest sense of the word?

 

Not necessarily. Cognitive processing has to do with all kinds of things involving working memory, background knowledge and its activation, innate structures of the brain/mind, experience, etc. (at least in humans). I don't honestly know enough about learning theory to talk particularly cogently about it, but "learning" is not a single thing either--some of "learning" is acquiring background knowledge you didn't have prior (say the date of the Norman invasion of Britain, that there's sometimes yummy stuff on a counter in that room where the people cook ); some of "learning" is routinizing discrete behaviors into a "chunk" (like learning to drive a car--at first, you have to actively focus on where to put your hands, what to do with your feet, where to look, etc. Over time, all that becomes connected in a chunk so you don't have to pay attention to each piece anymore; putting together a chain of discretely trained tricks into one trick called "get me a soda"), some of "learning" is activating some innate characteristic through the influence of input (like learning your native language or a border collie "turning on" in reaction to exposure to sheep).

 

Can you give an example? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I agree - that would be interesting - but I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

 

You explained it with your example of "sit" in the last response to Julie. You think the dog is processing stimulus and response and you interpret the dog's putting its rear on the floor as a response to your food stimulus. But you don't actually *know* that's how the dog processed that--you have an interpretive scheme and that observation matches it nicely.

 

There could be other explanations for the dog's behavior (maybe it's controlled by martians) and unless we can somehow capture the actual processing--we don't know what actually caused the behavior. I know that my martian example could seem purposively obtuse--I don't mean it that way--it's more that behaviorism makes one set of assumptions; other theories make others.

 

The degree to which that matters to individual people as regards dog training is probably mostly personal. I explained why it has mattered to me above.

 

I would definitely agree with that. I really don't know how to explain it, but the way that dogs actually process reinforcement definitely comes into play. In fact, I would say (and Karen Pryor goes into this in her most recent book, so this isn't my idea) that they process the information differently when different types of reinforcers are used. In other words, they mentally process a click/treat in a different way than they process a treat without a click. And then, that can differ from dog to dog, as well.

 

And for me this fact points out the need for an explanation (and a resultant toolbox) other than response to environmental stimuli and reinforcement for behavior. Clearly, individual dogs (and trainers) bring different stuff to the table--and, in my belief, that different stuff isn't just experiences with the world, it's also about something innate in the dog (and the handler).

 

It seems to me that if there is not some level of interest on the part of the dog, his head is simply not in the game, so to speak. Learning does require a cognitive process. If the dog's brain is simply not engaged in the task at hand, that cognitive process is not going to take place.

 

and I would argue that some dogs just aren't in to whatever it is because of something innate in them and that you will have limited success/difficulty in training that kind of dog. YOu can probably still do it to some degree--but it will be VERY different (and much more frustrating) than with a dog that does bring some kind of innate interest in whatever it is (which could just be whatever it is the handler wants it to do).

[Guest echoica]

the behavior expected to increase was the feet on the floor, as opposed to the counter.

 

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense logically when put together with your earlier statements. And it still does not make the example negative reinforcement (see my previous post to that). You are not applying an aversive to get the feet on the floor -- You apply the aversive to get the feet off the counter through positive punishment! If you are bent on reinforcing feet on the ground you would apply a reward for the feet on the ground behaviour not remove an aversive...because the removal of the aversive in itself would not produce the consequences you are looking for...it's the addition of the aversive/reward that changes the behaviour

[Root Beer]

I'm not sure that I can speak "generally" to pet dog trainers. For me personally, the effect was to stop worrying about figuring out the right reinforcement and the way to manage/set up an environment that worked for the dog and how to tell the dog not only that it was wrong/right, but also what I wanted it to do and instead to be more focused on what the dog seemed to bringing to the table--this being roughly what Denise called it the dog's genetics (and I'd probably add the dog's mind)--this sounds pretty ad hoc--but basically to learn the song rather than the notes.

 

I don't think it has to be an either/or. I see it as a both/and. Without the notes, there is no song.

 

I played a musical instrument for most of my life. We started out learning the notes, and then how to put them together, and then dynamics, and then how to improve intonation and quality of the sound. All of that together makes the song. Yes, there are people who can pick up an instrument and play by ear. But that is extremely rare.

 

When it comes to pet and sport dog training, it is entirely possible to focus both on what the dog brings to the table, and the notes that must be learned for the song to sound right.

 

For instance, my dog might naturally run across the dogwalk and get a foot in the yellow most of the time. But if I don't go beyond what the dog has to offer and teach the dog something that he cannot know through genetics, the song is going to go very flat at some point when a gorgeous run is disqualified because the dog got excited and flew off too high. At the same time, it is possible - even preferable - for the dog to have an active cognitive role in learning that contact behavior. That's where reinforcement becomes a valuable form of communication.

 

My point is not to negate what you have said. Different approaches can be appropriate to different disciplines.

 

I have a hard time applying the theory independently of the premises the theory is built on (and I tried for several years as I see a lot of benefits to the training tool box). Behaviorism assumes a kind of "blank slate" as a starting point and that slate gets filled up based on on-going experiences with stimulus and response. It assumes that the dog (or whatever species) doesn't come with certain innate characteristics that predispose it in certain directions--this is what Densie was talking about, I think, in terms of the dog's genetics.

 

I can say from experience that no reinforcement based class that I have ever attended has presumed this starting point. In fact, I wish more people would think of their dogs as "blank slates". It would be far preferable to trying to break through the attitude that their dogs are "problems" or "bad". Please let me be clear - not all pet dog trainers feel this way. But it is all too common.

 

One of the greatest challenges in pet dog training is helping people see that their dogs do have good things to bring to the table. So many things that are natural and normal are considered to be "bad behavior" and it seems to be easy for a lot of pet owners to fail to see very much good in their dogs.

 

Teaching people to tune in to their dogs and reinforce the behaviors that the dog is bringing to the table (the ones that they want to see more of) is one of the greatest challenges I've met in pet dog training.

 

Yes, we also use stimulus and response, and there are good reasons to do so. There are some things that we need our dogs to learn that are not genetic, and those things must be taught from the ground up. But we are certainly not limited to that. Some things are genetic, or instinctive. Obviously, we don't teach those things.

 

That's why Julie's question about tone was puzzling to me. Why would anyone *need* to teach their dog to understand what a tone of voice means? I see that as something that the dog must intuit.

 

You explained it with your example of "sit" in the last response to Julie. You think the dog is processing stimulus and response and you interpret the dog's putting its rear on the floor as a response to your food stimulus. But you don't actually *know* that's how the dog processed that--you have an interpretive scheme and that observation matches it nicely.

 

Just like I didn't *know* that the silage my neighbor plopped down 90 feet from our well was what destroyed the well by filling it with silage leachate. In spite of the fact that the water was fine before and silage leachate doesn't tend to spontaneously appear in water on it's own, I couldn't actually *know* that it was his silage. Well, that was according to the DEP. Here is some sarcasm - yeah, right.

 

There comes a point where certain realities are glaringly obvious. And to me it is glaringly obvious that the food comes into play in the dog's mind when I'm using food to train new things.

 

Might there be elements of mental processing going on in the dog that I'm not aware of? Sure. But that doesn't mean that I can't know a good bit about what the dog has figured out along the way.

 

There could be other explanations for the dog's behavior (maybe it's controlled by martians) and unless we can somehow capture the actual processing--we don't know what actually caused the behavior. I know that my martian example could seem purposively obtuse--I don't mean it that way--it's more that behaviorism makes one set of assumptions; other theories make others.

 

True. Theories are just that - theories. There are several theories that many people accept as 100% and unquestionably true that I don't buy - dominance theory would be one example.

 

Clearly, individual dogs (and trainers) bring different stuff to the table--and, in my belief, that different stuff isn't just experiences with the world, it's also about something innate in the dog (and the handler).

and I would argue that some dogs just aren't in to whatever it is because of something innate in them and that you will have limited success/difficulty in training that kind of dog. YOu can probably still do it to some degree--but it will be VERY different (and much more frustrating) than with a dog that does bring some kind of innate interest in whatever it is (which could just be whatever it is the handler wants it to do).

 

You may be surprised to hear that I agree with this completely.

[Eileen Stein]

Okay, just in case everyone isn't thoroughly bored with this little offshoot . . .

 

Anna (who is probably long gone by now) wrote:

 

OK, so you've got a dog who jumps up on people all the time. The dog does it once to me, I let it know that I don't like that behavior (an "acchht!!"), and the dog puts all four on the ground. The dog may still jump up on other people, but as it approaches me, you can tell it's thinking about jumping up, and decides not to. . . . Like Eileen, I have brought adult dogs into my house who have never been indoors before, and have taught them in one easy step that that behavior [counter-surfing] is not allowed; I also took in a dog who *did* have a habit of counter-surfing in her own home, and, again, one easy lesson--poof! No more counter-surfing.

 

Rushdoggie describes what Anna did as negative reinforcement. Echoica says it's positive punishment. Any other operant conditioning oriented trainers want to weigh in?

[Guest echoica]

Okay, just in case everyone isn't thoroughly bored with this little offshoot . . .

 

Anna (who is probably long gone by now) wrote:

Rushdoggie describes what Anna did as negative reinforcement. Echoica says it's positive punishment. Any other operant conditioning oriented trainers want to weigh in?

 

haha! ...i just couldn't help myself

 

i wish skinner was here (and his sexy glasses) *sigh*

[juliepoudrier]

IThat's why Julie's question about tone was puzzling to me. Why would anyone *need* to teach their dog to understand what a tone of voice means? I see that as something that the dog must intuit.

 

My actual question was this:

Maybe someone can explain to me how that sort of communication can be trained without ever using a correction.

 

As the discussion went on, it got into tones, but I don't think I ever specifically said tones are "taught" in the commonly used sense of the word. In fact, I believe I said that the dogs certainly learned (intuited) what tones meant largely through everyday interactions (but I'm not about to take the time to go back through these many pages of posts and start quoting myself repeatedly). In the example with Pip and the lamb that was being discussed I noted that I could use his name in different tones to communicate a different message and in fact pointed out that Pip was new to working lambs and that it wasn't something I could set up and teach specifically, but that in fact he had to take his base of knowledge and respond to me (and my tone in that moment) to figure out that I wanted him to be more careful with the lamb than he might be with an adult ewe.... In fact, i was giving him the credit for being able to read my tone in an unfamiliar situation and intuit what I actually wanted when the only word I spoke was his name.

 

Now I suspect we all have different interpretations of the words "teach" and "learn."

 

J.

[Root Beer]

My actual question was this:

 

Maybe someone can explain to me how that sort of communication can be trained without ever using a correction

 

As the discussion went on, it got into tones, but I don't think I ever specifically said tones are "taught" in the commonly used sense of the word. In fact, I believe I said that the dogs certainly learned (intuited) what tones meant largely through everyday interactions (but I'm not about to take the time to go back through these many pages of posts and start quoting myself repeatedly).

 

Now I suspect we all have different interpretations of the words "teach" and "learn."

 

I still find the question (quoted in quotes above) completely puzzling. It strikes me the same way, "Maybe someone can explain to me how the dog can be trained to eat without ever using a correction" would.

 

No, you never said specifically that tones are "taught". And we seem to agree that tones are learned (intuited) through everyday interactions. That is precisely why the question didn't make sense to me. There is no need to teach a dog to understand different tones "without correction" because there is no need to teach it at all. So there is no "how" to explain. That's the way I see it, anyway.

[stockdogranch]

Anna (who is probably long gone by now) wrote:...

Ha! Actually, I'm still here, reading away...and like, you, am really interested in others' responses. I find it all very confusing, but then again, this is not my "schtick," but would expect more consensus from those for whom it is,

 

Rushdoggie describes what Anna did as negative reinforcement. Echoica says it's positive punishment. Any other operant conditioning oriented trainers want to weigh in?

I know what *I* would call it--giving the dog information that that particular behavior was not acceptable, and having the underlying expectation that the dog should remember that. Not very scientific, eh?

A

[juliepoudrier]

I don't understand what puzzles you. Several folks, you included, have stated that it's possible (and perhaps desirable) to train without corrections. At least one person stated that some dogs just can't ever be given a correction without falling to pieces. I was simply countering that there are situations in which corrections are a necessary part of training. I didn't say that corrections are a necessary part of Kristine's training. I simply stated that contrary to the folks who say that one can train without ever using corrections, there are training situations in which corrections are necessary. Just because the type of training a particular person does doesn't require that person to use corrections doesn't mean that *all* training can be achieved without corrections. Once again, my response was in terms of *stockwork* and my example was clearly stockwork. I did not say that basic pet manners can't be trained without corrections. I was simply pointing out that in certain contexts (stockwork) corrections are necessary and that the learning process for dogs that goes hand-in-hand with corrections is important in that context. I'm not sure why you keep referring this back to your own training methods when I have been as clear as I can that I am talking about stockwork and that I am addressing the folks who issue blanket statements like "corrections are never necessary in training."

 

Again, I am not saying that you personally can't train without corrections. But I think it's valid to provide a living example of a training situation in which corrections might be necessary and ask anyone who says "corrections are never necessary for training" to explain how I could have accomplished what I needed to do without ever using corrections (which was the actual question, and I don't think it's a terribly confusing question either). Instead of an answer to the question, I get a bunch of "your question makes no sense" type answers from you. I can predict that your next answer will be that you don't know how you'd train to my example without corrections because you've never had a need to do that sort of training (stockwork). And I say, that's fine. Just don't use absolutes like "training can be achieved without ever using a correction" because it's just not true. If you want to qualify that by saying, "it's possible to train a pet dog to have manners and do tricks without ever using a correction" then I'm fine with that. Just don't say "all training can be achieved without corrections" because a bunch of us whose training for a purpose requires corrections are going to take issue with such a statement. I don't know how much clearer I can be than that. (Oh, and although this rant is in response to your post above, anyone reading this can take the word you to mean anyone, not just, well, you.)

 

And perhaps you'll even respond to say "I never said that," but at this point, I think it's been clearly implied and I'm tired of the round and round.

 

J.

[Guest echoica]

Ha! Actually, I'm still here, reading away...and like, you, am really interested in others' responses. I find it all very confusing, but then again, this is not my "schtick," but would expect more consensus from those for whom it is,

I know what *I* would call it--giving the dog information that that particular behavior was not acceptable, and having the underlying expectation that the dog should remember that. Not very scientific, eh?

A

 

I think that's perfect!!

 

Honestly, outside of this forum I wouldn't tell someone in training 'WOOEEEEOOOO, you just did positive punishment! YAY-OMG'. Because they would look at me weird. It would be in the real world...'We just gave the dog a verbal correction for doing something we don't like'. I really don't consider myself a strictly operant conditioning trainer or anything like that...I just have a lot of respect for the theory behind it And I find it incredibly intriguing. But behaviourism is only one school of psychological thought...

[Root Beer]

I don't understand what puzzles you. Several folks, you included, have stated that it's possible (and perhaps desirable) to train without corrections.

 

Again, what does that have to do with a dog intuiting tone of voice?

 

I'm still seeing apples and oranges here.

 

I was simply countering that there are situations in which corrections are a necessary part of training.

 

By using an example where corrections - or lack thereof - don't even come into play?

 

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, although I'm sure it looks that way. I still don't see the connection.

 

Once again, my response was in terms of *stockwork* and my example was clearly stockwork.

 

Dogs intuiting tone of voice extends far beyond stockwork. The topic itself is certainly relevant to everyone, including pet and sport folks.

 

I'm not sure why you keep referring this back to your own training methods

 

Probably for the same reason that you do.

 

I can predict that your next answer will be that you don't know how you'd train to my example without corrections because you've never had a need to do that sort of training (stockwork).

 

Actually, you are wrong about that. My answer is that I don't need to train your example because I give my dogs credit for understanding tone of voice. No reinforcement, no corrections - just dog-sense, or whatever you might want to call the dog's ability to understand things like that. It's not something that I need to teach.

 

If you want to qualify that by saying, "it's possible to train a pet dog to have manners and do tricks without ever using a correction" then I'm fine with that.

 

Sorry, I won't be able to make you happy on that point. Far more than training manners and tricks can be done without correction. Training for competitive sports, and behavior modification come to mind right off the bat. I know that other types of training are done without corrections. There are people who snake-proof dogs through reinforcement, and there is a group training gun-dogs through reinforcement. That, in spite of the fact that the general consensus is that it can't be done. I can't say whether it can be done or not, but I know that there are people who are giving it a go.

 

Just don't say "all training can be achieved without corrections" because a bunch of us whose training for a purpose requires corrections are going to take issue with such a statement.

 

I am neither going to say that "all training can be achieved without corrections", nor am I going to say that there is any particular type of training that *cannot* be achieved without corrections. I know that won't make a lot of people happy, but I simply will not declare something to be "not possible" because there are people who want to hear that. I have yet to find the limits to what reinforcement based training can do.

 

I do know for a fact that training through reinforcement can achieve a heck of a lot more than many here seem to believe. There have been plenty of non-stockwork applications that have been declared "not possible" by some. (Not in this thread) Those are applications with which I have some first hand experience and I think that people who are making decisions about training their dogs (in pet, sport, behavior modification, etc. contexts) should know that there are training options - even if some of those are unpopular here.

 

And perhaps you'll even respond to say "I never said that," but at this point, I think it's been clearly implied and I'm tired of the round and round.

 

You think I implied it, so it must be true. Got it.

[Guest echoica]

Hmmmm, for educational purposes, here is a really good video for any of y'all looking to better understand the clicker-training method (or no-correction approach Root Beer has been talking about):

 

 

I love the Kikopup channel. She does awesome stuff with her dogs!

[juliepoudrier]

Again, what does that have to do with a dog intuiting tone of voice?

 

I'm still seeing apples and oranges here.

 

Please go back and connect all the dots to where you've come to the conclusion that I said a dog has to learn tone of voice. You've completely lost me, and I think this is a sad result of the practice of picking out phrases from an entire block of text (i.e., out of context) and dissecting them. And of course if I hit the reply button I get just your responses, and frankly I don't have the patience to go back and splice in the quotes from me you were responding to--to me this discussion just really isn't worth that much effort). So if you can show me where I said a dog has to be taught tone of voice, then perhaps I can answer your question.

 

By using an example where corrections - or lack thereof - don't even come into play?

 

The point was that the ability to respond to his name appropriately was based in my total training method, which includes corrections. I guess I could use Jodi's example of the pregnant ewe being chased, in which case I said I'd give a sharp correction word, and would expect the dog to stop. Is that better?

 

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, although I'm sure it looks that way. I still don't see the connection.

 

You've so completely lost me by now that I have no idea what connection you're even asking about anymore. And frankly sometimes I think that's exactly the goal for which you're aiming. Well, you've succeeded. I give up.

 

Dogs intuiting tone of voice extends far beyond stockwork.

 

Did I say it didn't?

 

The topic itself is certainly relevant to everyone, including pet and sport folks.

 

Did I say it wasn't? Once again, I thought I was being clear that I use stockwork as an example because that's my area of expertise. It seems to me that very early on in this thread I made a point of saying that I don't ever try to claim that I know squat about training methods for other disciplines and in keeping with that admission, I try not to make blanket statements regarding training for those disciplines in which I don't participate. I simply explained how tone of voice worked for a particular example I used. I never implied that tone of voice wasn't relevant for anyone else's life, and I don't see how you've come to that conclusion here.

 

I said "I don't see why you keep referring this back to your own training methods," and you replied: Probably for the same reason that you do.

 

Are you deliberately choosing to miss my point here? It sure seems so. What is not clear about the statement: "Corrections do have a place in training, and specifically in stockdog training"? I know I'm repeating myself here, but here we go again: If someone says all training can be done without corrections, I am going to provide and example of a type of training that generally requires corrections. I don't care if you choose to disagree with that statement by hiding behind your usual response, which is I don't know if that's true, because I haven't done it. While I get why you give this stock answer, and I'm certainly not attempting to make you agree with my training methods, I think you can expect that when someone makes a blanket statement, someone whose experience differs from that statement is going to say so.

 

Actually, you are wrong about that. My answer is that I don't need to train your example because I give my dogs credit for understanding tone of voice. No reinforcement, no corrections - just dog-sense, or whatever you might want to call the dog's ability to understand things like that. It's not something that I need to teach.

 

Oh for chrissake! Where have a said you need to teach tone of voice? Did I not in my very last post say just the opposite? In fact, I found the entire statement above completely insulting. You are implying that I don't give my dogs credit for something when in fact it is my belief that my original example in fact gave my dog credit for taking my tone of voice and using only his name to correctly intuit what I wanted in what for him was a completely new situation, and a situation where another living being could have been hurt had he intuited incorrectly. And again, where did I say I had to teach tone of voice? I said I teach a dog to take a correction and that a correction can be as simple as tone of voice, but that's one giant leap your taking to then infer that I say I teach my dogs tone of voice, don't you think?

 

Sorry, I won't be able to make you happy on that point. Far more than training manners and tricks can be done without correction. Training for competitive sports, and behavior modification come to mind right off the bat. I know that other types of training are done without corrections. There are people who snake-proof dogs through reinforcement, and there is a group training gun-dogs through reinforcement. That, in spite of the fact that the general consensus is that it can't be done. I can't say whether it can be done or not, but I know that there are people who are giving it a go.

 

Okay, so in the future when I say that positive reinforcement can be used to train dogs (and of course you know I've never said it couldn't) I now must include every possible situation in which such training could be used? Otherwise you'll throw it back in my face as if I was trying to trick you into admitting somehthing you won't admit?

 

Those are applications with which I have some first hand experience and I think that people who are making decisions about training their dogs (in pet, sport, behavior modification, etc. contexts) should know that there are training options - even if some of those are unpopular here.

 

And I would say that--to use your own argument here--as unpopular as it may be to folks like you, others of us are just as well within our rights to note that there are other options available. Gee, I guess we've come full circle.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Please go back and connect all the dots to where you've come to the conclusion that I said a dog has to learn tone of voice. You've completely lost me, and I think this is a sad result of the practice of picking out phrases from an entire block of text (i.e., out of context) and dissecting them. And of course if I hit the reply button I get just your responses, and frankly I don't have the patience to go back and splice in the quotes from me you were responding to--to me this discussion just really isn't worth that much effort). So if you can show me where I said a dog has to be taught tone of voice, then perhaps I can answer your question.

 

I'm not going to go back and connect the dots to try to convince you that I said something that I never said that you said.

 

You've so completely lost me by now that I have no idea what connection you're even asking about anymore. And frankly sometimes I think that's exactly the goal for which you're aiming. Well, you've succeeded. I give up.

 

No, that's not the goal I'm aiming for. I really was trying to understand what you meant by the question, which I actually did find confusing, whether you choose to believe that or not.

 

Did I say it didn't?

 

No, you didn't say that it didn't. I didn't point that out to indicate that you were saying that it didn't.

 

Are you deliberately choosing to miss my point here?

 

No, but I wonder if you are deliberately choosing to miss mine.

 

ETA:

 

I don't care if you choose to disagree with that statement by hiding behind your usual response, which is I don't know if that's true, because I haven't done it.

 

I'm not hiding behind anything. I've been honest and straightforward. I am not going to turn around and say that something cannot be done when I do not have the firsthand experience to make that claim. I ask others not to do the same when it comes to things with which I have experience and they do not. To me that's consistent.

[jdarling]

Julie said:

I can predict that your next answer will be that you don't know how you'd train to my example without corrections because you've never had a need to do that sort of training (stockwork).

 

Kristine said:

Actually, you are wrong about that. My answer is that I don't need to train your example because I give my dogs credit for understanding tone of voice. No reinforcement, no corrections - just dog-sense, or whatever you might want to call the dog's ability to understand things like that. It's not something that I need to teach.

 

Kristine, have you ever done any stockdog training?

[Root Beer]

A little. It's definitely not my thing.

 

Have you ever done any training for competition Freestyle?