what do you use for treats?

[Blackdawgs]

In Reaching the Animal Mind, Karen Pryor talks about clicker training humans. I can't remember the details, but it has been used succesfully with athletes (gymnasts?) and I think artistic children. Ofcourse, they have given this mode of training another name (can't recall) due to the stigma of training humans like animals.

[stockdogranch]

Wow. How'd I miss this one? I guess 'cuz I don't give treats, I figured it wasn't a discussion I'd have anything to add, but I have some random thoughts on several of the issues that have been brought up here...

The reason is that in the working relationship (I will venture that this dynamic is similar in all working dogs), dogs have knowledge and skills that humans need but don't share (otherwise, why use a dog?). This means that in order to fully utilize the dog, man has to trust the animal. But the dog also has to learn to trust man. It's through this shared trust and mutual giving up of control that the partnership works and grows. I just don't see this same analogy with agility, flyball, obedience, etc.

First, I think Kim has made a really great point here, and expressed it very clearly. Second, I think Julie's examples of the dog "thinking" in novel situations also really explain the difference between what I might call "mechanical" (going with Julie's "definition" of every move must be taught/commanded, etc.), and what I would call a "thinking dog." I think in working with a dog, that is, doing a job (not a game or sport or trick), which would include SAR, drug dogs, etc., as well as stockwork, the situations are so varied and changeable, from moment to moment, that there is no way you can "pre-teach" every response or every movement--the effective dog MUST be able think for itself. And as someone pointed out (maybe it was Eileen?), those decisions are not just to do as the handler says or not, but require much higher levels of decision making. I'll add my own recent example of a dog figuring out a way to deal with a situation: I have a young pup (just 12 months) who is learning to move NASTY momma ewes and their brand-new lambs. These are ewes who will run at the dogs and head butt them in a big way IF the dog gets too close and puts on too much pressure. The trick is that the dog needs to learn when to apply pressure and when to back off that pressure a bit so that mom can relax enough to move in the desired direction. So, the dog knows from prior work what I need done--bring the mom and her babies into this pen. In preparation, I've walked back there alongside the pup a time or two, and the pup has also worked with an older very experienced dog back there as "backup" or an "example" of how it's done. This pup has devised her very own way of getting the job done. She gets down into an almost lying down position, and scoots, kind of army-crawl fashion, but moving forward about 3-4 feet at a time. She has a nasty, teeth-baring/bitey face going on, and (I hate this part!), she also barks (I know the bark is a young pup, still-not-totally confident thing in this really tough situation, and should diminish with age and experience). It's rather comical to watch, but it's effective. Between each "lunge" (pressure on), there is a moment when the pup is just lying there (pressure off), letting mom move. The nasty moms move away from her, taking their babies with them. Now that's not a move I could have ever in a million years taught her--it was her assessment of the situation, given her previous knowledge of reading livestock and summoning the pressure necessary to move these recalcitrant moms.

 

My last comment has to do the with "money for grades" thing. I teach college freshmen academic writing at one of the state-subsidized universities here in SoCal. The entrance requirements are not exactly stiff at this university--pretty much, if you pay your money and you have a pulse, you get to go to college. I've been teaching there for 16 years, and over the years, with each incoming group of freshmen, their attitudes have been steadily declining. The attitude of the majority of these kids is to do as little as possible to just get by. They actually ask me at the beginning of the quarter, "What do I need to do to pass with a C?" They ONLY do what is absolutely necessary to get by, and have little to no interest in learning for the sake of learning. They have been told all their lives that they need to go to college to get a good job, so there they are, doing as required, but they care about nothing (perhaps except for texting their friends during class). They are unmotivated and lazy. These are the kids who grew up in an era of "social promotion"--they could do absolutely no work in school, but they never had to repeat a grade, because that might "damage their self-esteem." For these kids, self-esteem was something that was not earned intrinsically, but rather something that was bestowed upon them. Everyone was a "student of the month"; everyone always got a trophy or prize, whether they performed well or not; everyone was at all times a "winner." So, yes, count me in as one of those who seriously recoils at the "money for grades" thing,

A

[Withzia]

I've been finding this discussion interesting--particularly the question of whether stock work is somehow qualitatively different from other kinds of activities for dogs, and if so why.

 

Let me suggest introducing one more type of dog activity into the mix--search and rescue. Let's look at how it measures, in terms of the types of variables discussed on this thread:

 

* Extent of initiative and autonomous decision-making required of the dog:

 

Very high. If you've ever seen a good SAR dog "working out a problem," you'll know this. I'd be glad to back up this point if you have any doubts.

 

* Whether the rewards are extraneous or intrinsic:

 

Mixed. My dog clearly loved searching itself more than anything on earth, and appeared to get a kick out finding people, but SAR dog-training does have the ritual of always providing the toy play-time when the dog leads the handler to the subject.

 

* Whether or not clicker training is used:

 

Not in my experience.

 

* Whether or not it's what the dog was bred to do (a variable that usually appears in these discussions, whether or not it's appeared in this thread):

 

Nope.

 

* Whether or not the human's living depends upon the activity:

 

Not in the volunteer work that predominates in SAR training in the US. Still, it can be life and death for other people.

 

I'm not sure what this implies for the biggest points of contention in this thread, but I wanted to correct the implicit idea that stock work is the only work border collies can do that requires them to take initiative and use their own judgment. I know it's not what they were bred to do, but there's something beautiful about seeing any well-trained SAR dog work. The best SAR handlers know to defer to the dogs as much as possible within the limits of the instructions they received from Incident Command.

[Blackdawgs]

You say your dog is thinking and making choices, and that's true, but basically he's making the choice whether to do what To the extent that there is only one right response in agility (when you say "tunnel" the dog goes through the tunnel), then training for agility is, in this sense, training a dog to be mechanical.

 

Actually, agility is much more complicated than a dog taking a command or not. It is my job to direct the dog and it's my dog's job to perform the obstacles. The dog constantly needs to adjust it's balance and striding to negotiate the course. We don't stand in the middle of the ring and count strides and scream "take off" at the appropriate time. I'm blessed with a dog that has saved my butt on more than one occasion, either by adjusting herself to my crappy handling or making a choice to take an obstacle while mom is standing around like a dummy trying to remember the course.

 

I'm a novice herder. Yersterday, we were practicing little outruns and I watched my BC adjust herself to the sheep as she was moving towards them. The difference betweeen this and my agility dog is that the sheep are dynamic, but the agility obstacles are static. But, I assure you, that my agility dog makes the same types of adjustments as my Border Collie, but on a lesser scale.

[Denise Wall]

I'm a novice herder. Yersterday, we were practicing little outruns and I watched my BC adjust herself to the sheep as she was moving towards them. The difference betweeen this and my agility dog is that the sheep are dynamic, but the agility obstacles are static. But, I assure you, that my agility dog makes the same types of adjustments as my Border Collie, but on a lesser scale.

 

I'd be curious to know if your opinion on this changes when you are no longer a "novice herder."

[juliepoudrier]

Withzia,

I'm wondering if you read the entire thread? In several instances I did equate jobs like SAR work, sled work, bomb-sniffing, etc., with stock work. In some of the examples I gave (e.g., pulling a sled), the dogs are bred for the work and in others (e.g., SAR and bomb-detection), they are not. In each case I noted that if the dog/human team failed to meet the goal then there was likely a negative consequence more serious than not qualifying or winning or whatever. I was making that point to clarify why a working partnership--which implies independent thinking and judgement on the dog's part--on that level is different than typical games/sports partnership. So I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone was saying that stockwork was the only activity where dogs had to take the initiative and use judgment.

 

J.

 

I've been finding this discussion interesting--particularly the question of whether stock work is somehow qualitatively different from other kinds of activities for dogs, and if so why.

 

Let me suggest introducing one more type of dog activity into the mix--search and rescue. Let's look at how it measures, in terms of the types of variables discussed on this thread:

 

* Extent of initiative and autonomous decision-making required of the dog:

 

Very high. If you've ever seen a good SAR dog "working out a problem," you'll know this. I'd be glad to back up this point if you have any doubts.

 

* Whether the rewards are extraneous or intrinsic:

 

Mixed. My dog clearly loved searching itself more than anything on earth, and appeared to get a kick out finding people, but SAR dog-training does have the ritual of always providing the toy play-time when the dog leads the handler to the subject.

 

* Whether or not clicker training is used:

 

Not in my experience.

 

* Whether or not it's what the dog was bred to do (a variable that usually appears in these discussions, whether or not it's appeared in this thread):

 

Nope.

 

* Whether or not the human's living depends upon the activity:

 

Not in the volunteer work that predominates in SAR training in the US. Still, it can be life and death for other people.

 

I'm not sure what this implies for the biggest points of contention in this thread, but I wanted to correct the implicit idea that stock work is the only work border collies can do that requires them to take initiative and use their own judgment. I know it's not what they were bred to do, but there's something beautiful about seeing any well-trained SAR dog work. The best SAR handlers know to defer to the dogs as much as possible within the limits of the instructions they received from Incident Command.

[flyer]

In Reaching the Animal Mind, Karen Pryor talks about clicker training humans. I can't remember the details, but it has been used succesfully with athletes (gymnasts?) and I think artistic children. Ofcourse, they have given this mode of training another name (can't recall) due to the stigma of training humans like animals.

 

 

Autistic children, and very successfully. It is called tagging and food is used after the click.

 

With athletes such as the gymnasts mentioned the click is the reward. That and getting the technique that is being tagged.

[stockdogranch]

The difference betweeen this and my agility dog is that the sheep are dynamic, but the agility obstacles are static. But, I assure you, that my agility dog makes the same types of adjustments as my Border Collie, but on a lesser scale.

Sorry, but I'll attribute this comment to your being a "novice" at "herding." This, frankly, is the kind of thinking that looks at the livestock as the "training toys" that we use for the dog to merely move around. If it were that simple--just teaching the dog the "moves" to make--then every dog could, in theory, be the next National Champion. Yes, the sheep are "dynamic," as in they *move* while the agility obstacles do not. But the sheep are also *thinking*--thinking about leaving so they can go eat or hang out with their friends or just lie in the shade, or whatever. And more than that, just as the dog is "sizing up" the sheep, so are the sheep (or cattle, perhaps even more so) sizing up the dog. The instant they perceive a dog who is "not all that," as in, the dog is perhaps a bit intimidated by the stock, or lacks confidence or experience, the dog is toast; the stock win, and they will not move for the dog. So the dog has to make more decisions than just how or where to move, but, and this is a HUGE but (perhaps the biggest issue there is in stockwork), the dog has to READ the stock--their pressure (or energy, if you will), which results in the stock's inclination to move for the dog or not to move for the dog, or to even try to do physical harm to the dog. Another example: I am at a cattle trial. One calf is tending to not move readily for my dog. She is face-to-face with my dog. I ask the dog to bite the calf's nose (we are on the clock, and I need to get this witch to move so we can complete the course). Dog does not bite, but stands her ground, staring at the calf, giving her the curly-lip. What feels like an eternity goes by (probably all of 5 seconds). Calf turns quietly and moves in desired direction. Moral of the story: the dog sure as hell knows more about the relationship she has with that calf than I do, and ever will. She knew that had she bitten, she would have most probably created a mess. Now she has control over that calf, and has accomplished that by using her mind and her determination. Do your agility obstacles really present that kind of situation?

A

A

[flyer]

Methinks Eileen has nailed the partnership part of the debate when she said:

 

I think the reason it veered of into this direction is that words such as "partnership", "thinking" and "mechanical" are being used in different senses by different people. You are defining partnership to be what a person and dog have when they participate together in some kind of activity. Therefore, you see both you and the stockdog people as having the same relationship of partnership with your dogs, and how could comparing them be anything but a subjective comparison of which one is more satisfying? To the stockdog people, a person-dog relationship is not necessarily a partnership, any more than the relationship you have with the child you're rearing is a partnership. How much of a partnership it is depends on mutuality of contribution and the seriousness of the endeavor. If one party is providing all the direction and decision-making, it's harder to term it a partnership. If either party can walk away without consequences, it's harder to term it a partnership. Thus, what I understand them to be saying is not that the agility or free-style person's relationship with their dog is not as rich and satisfying as a stockdog person's, but that it does not partake as fully of the qualities of a partnership. I think that's what Kim was saying explicitly, and the others were saying implicitly, even if the terminology used was not always consistent.

 

You say your dog is thinking and making choices, and that's true, but basically he's making the choice whether to do what you're telling him to or not. That is certainly a thought process, and c/t training does not deprive him of that thought process, but that is not the kind of thinking a stockdog needs to do, and his person needs him to do. Or rather, it is one small part of it, but when stockdog people talk about "a dog that thinks," they mean a dog who can figure out what to do in a novel or changed situation, as in the examples Julie P described. Producing a dog like that, rather than a dog who makes the choice to obey commands, is the good stockdog trainer's goal. If instead she produces a dog that just obeys every command without thinking (i.e., without thinking how to interpret that command for the good of the enterprise, rather than simply thinking "should I obey, or should I visit with the sideline dogs instead?"), then she will be said to have produced a mechanical dog. To the extent that there is only one right response in agility (when you say "tunnel" the dog goes through the tunnel), then training for agility is, in this sense, training a dog to be mechanical. The use of that term does not imply anything about the richness and satisfaction of the relationship between the person and dog.

 

To those who continue to argue that there is deeper satisfaction for both human and dog in a situation where life is at stake or where the dog's gifts are a necessary part of the equation i.e. stock sense, I wonder if that may be true for the handler, but is it really so for the dog? Can one actually determine whether a dog who has just moved stock all day with his partner feels any more satisfied than the dog who completed the agility course and pleased his owner immensely or the dog that visits people in palliative care and feels their gratitude and peace? I for one believe that deep relationships with our dogs can form in very simple ways. It is that relationship we take into any endeavor we together.

[kajarrel]

Wait, back up . . . ! Where has anyone said anything about satisfaction? We're talking partnerships. Please, guys, read the posts.

 

Kim

[Withzia]

Withzia,

I'm wondering if you read the entire thread? In several instances I did equate jobs like SAR work, sled work, bomb-sniffing, etc., with stock work. In some of the examples I gave (e.g., pulling a sled), the dogs are bred for the work and in others (e.g., SAR and bomb-detection), they are not. In each case I noted that if the dog/human team failed to meet the goal then there was likely a negative consequence more serious than not qualifying or winning or whatever. I was making that point to clarify why a working partnership--which implies independent thinking and judgement on the dog's part--on that level is different than typical games/sports partnership. So I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone was saying that stockwork was the only activity where dogs had to take the initiative and use judgment.

 

Good Lord, I didn't say "Julie Poudrier says that only ..." and I didn't say that absolutely no one had brought up those other activities--you did in the context of handler and dog working together for a socially beneficial purpose. (You didn't bring up the initiative and judgment angle as far I can see.) I thought it might be interesting to throw this activity in the mix and think about it systematically.

[flyer]

Wait, back up . . . ! Where has anyone said anything about satisfaction? We're talking partnerships. Please, guys, read the posts.

 

BTW, flyer, the highlighted sentence clearly says the opposite of what you've written.

 

Kim

 

I've read the whole thread and find it very interesting. No need to chastise. If I have missed something perhaps you could enlighten me instead as to what I am misunderstanding.

 

I don't think that last sentence of Eileen's is stating the opposite of what I wrote at all. I understood that sentence to mean that the "partnership" of dog and handler doing stockwork fits the definition of partnership more clearly and honestly due to the fact that both dog and handler bring something intrinsic to the equation as opposed to a dog and handler performing a freestyle, say, where the handler is calling all the shots and I agreed with that.

 

When I read the thread I thought there was argument that the relationship formed through stockwork was some how deeper because of this fact. I stated that I am uncertain how one goes about proving that to be true.

[kajarrel]

I'm sorry flyer, I quickly removed the last sentence because when I re-read your post I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with what Eileen said , and I wasn't meaning to "chastise" but rather encourage you (others) to read carefully.

 

Often, when we get into these discussions, they degenerate into discussions about the quality of X (e.g., pets versus working dogs) rather than the substance. When this happens, I worry that people dismiss the messages. I know that I was careful to write that many relationships with our dogs are satisfying, not just working relationships. I dearly love my "pets" and in no way value my relationships with them less than those with my working dogs.

 

Kim

[Maralynn]

The fact of the matter is, you don't actually know the level of relationship, partnership, etc. that I actually have with my dogs. You can say that you found another level, but that's you. I don't doubt that's the case - for you.

 

Very true. But I also know that hundreds of people who have had both working dogs and pets will tell you that there is a difference in relationships that comes when you partner with a dog to do a job. A dog that is using his training, his instincts to accomplish a job that you can't do. A dog that needs to copes with and compensates for the variables that life throws at him in the midst of doing his job. And just because I believe this I guess doesn't mean I think that it is the only way one can have a relationship or partnership with their dog. I could turn that around as a question for you - how do you know there is not a different level? For example how do you know that if you needed to train one of your dogs as an assistance dog for yourself that you wouldn't discover another level of partnership with your dog? Or do you think it would stay the same?

 

Just some food for thought. Whether or not you believe that it is actually possible for there to be a whole level of meaning and fulfillment between dog and handler who are not doing something that is necessary for you is certainly your choice. It doesn't change anything, though, for those of us who have found that with our dogs in other areas of life.

 

If you re-read my other post you'll see that this is not what I said I believe you and your dogs (as well as just about anyone on these boards no matter what activity they do or don't do with their dog) have a very fulfilling and meaningful relationship.

[juliepoudrier]

Good Lord, I didn't say "Julie Poudrier says that only ..." and I didn't say that absolutely no one had brought up those other activities--you did in the context of handler and dog working together for a socially beneficial purpose. (You didn't bring up the initiative and judgment angle as far I can see.) I thought it might be interesting to throw this activity in the mix and think about it systematically.

No, you simply implied that SAR work hadn't been considered when in fact it had. I mentioned it in the context of *partnerships* and the fact that such partnerships occur at a higher level than, say, a partnership in which the partners are doing freestyle dance or agility (the whole socially beneficial thing is extraneous since Kristine would say that visits to the nursing home are socially beneficial and I would contend that the work my dogs do probably isn't socially beneficial in the way SAR or bomb work is, though it certainly is economically beneficial to *me*). I would have thought that in discussing partnerships in this fashion the greater level of inititiative and judgement would have been implied, especially since I had already given examples in stockwork of where this is so, and then followed on by equating the other activities with stockwork. In my dicussion with Kristine she kept referring to fulfillment and I kept trying to say that I wasn't talking about fulfillment but a higher sort of purpose. But whatever.

 

J.

[Maralynn]

My last comment has to do the with "money for grades" thing. I teach college freshmen academic writing at one of the state-subsidized universities here in SoCal. The entrance requirements are not exactly stiff at this university--pretty much, if you pay your money and you have a pulse, you get to go to college. I've been teaching there for 16 years, and over the years, with each incoming group of freshmen, their attitudes have been steadily declining. The attitude of the majority of these kids is to do as little as possible to just get by. They actually ask me at the beginning of the quarter, "What do I need to do to pass with a C?" They ONLY do what is absolutely necessary to get by, and have little to no interest in learning for the sake of learning. They have been told all their lives that they need to go to college to get a good job, so there they are, doing as required, but they care about nothing (perhaps except for texting their friends during class). They are unmotivated and lazy. These are the kids who grew up in an era of "social promotion"--they could do absolutely no work in school, but they never had to repeat a grade, because that might "damage their self-esteem." For these kids, self-esteem was something that was not earned intrinsically, but rather something that was bestowed upon them. Everyone was a "student of the month"; everyone always got a trophy or prize, whether they performed well or not; everyone was at all times a "winner." So, yes, count me in as one of those who seriously recoils at the "money for grades" thing,

A

 

I started decided to go back to college last year. This semester I'm in a class of mostly transfer students from the high school. There are 3 adult students in the class including myself. Half the kids in the class are texting frequently throughout class. The instructor said multiple times that he expected students to turn in a type written outline on a certain day and he still got at least 3 hand written ones and one person didn't even have one.

 

In anotherclass I had a teacher give extra credit to students who showed up on time one day when it was a little nasty. And our actual tests were only about 10% of the final grade. Pretty much any student who halfway participated got an A. I'll be avoiding any of her classes in the future. I'm taking the second semester of that subject with another teacher and enjoying it much more even though the work is harder, she expects more of her students and I'll be lucky if I end up with a B.

[Withzia]

My last comment has to do the with "money for grades" thing. I teach college freshmen academic writing at one of the state-subsidized universities here in SoCal. The entrance requirements are not exactly stiff at this university--pretty much, if you pay your money and you have a pulse, you get to go to college. I've been teaching there for 16 years, and over the years, with each incoming group of freshmen, their attitudes have been steadily declining. The attitude of the majority of these kids is to do as little as possible to just get by. They actually ask me at the beginning of the quarter, "What do I need to do to pass with a C?" They ONLY do what is absolutely necessary to get by, and have little to no interest in learning for the sake of learning. They have been told all their lives that they need to go to college to get a good job, so there they are, doing as required, but they care about nothing (perhaps except for texting their friends during class). They are unmotivated and lazy. These are the kids who grew up in an era of "social promotion"--they could do absolutely no work in school, but they never had to repeat a grade, because that might "damage their self-esteem." For these kids, self-esteem was something that was not earned intrinsically, but rather something that was bestowed upon them. Everyone was a "student of the month"; everyone always got a trophy or prize, whether they performed well or not; everyone was at all times a "winner." So, yes, count me in as one of those who seriously recoils at the "money for grades" thing.

 

I started decided to go back to college last year. This semester I'm in a class of mostly transfer students from the high school. There are 3 adult students in the class including myself. Half the kids in the class are texting frequently throughout class. The instructor said multiple times that he expected students to turn in a type written outline on a certain day and he still got at least 3 hand written ones and one person didn't even have one.

 

In anotherclass I had a teacher give extra credit to students who showed up on time one day when it was a little nasty. And our actual tests were only about 10% of the final grade. Pretty much any student who halfway participated got an A. I'll be avoiding any of her classes in the future. I'm taking the second semester of that subject with another teacher and enjoying it much more even though the work is harder, she expects more of her students and I'll be lucky if I end up with a B.

 

I don't get what any of the instances in the second quote and most of the instances in the first quote have to do with the "money for grades" thing. Surely trophies for everybody and "social promotion" and credit for just showing up are at the opposite end of the "use of rewards" spectrum from "money for grades."

 

I didn't understand an earlier reference in this thread to "money for grades" as a manifestation of "political correctness," either. I would expect the politically correct (assuming you mean the good-hearted granola-crunching idealist types in Birkenstocks) to be the last people on earth to pay their kids money for good grades.

 

Would it be out of place for me to warn against lumping together all the things you don't like into a single category, whether they fit together logically or not?

[Eileen Stein]

With athletes such as the gymnasts mentioned the click is the reward. That and getting the technique that is being tagged.

 

If I recall correctly, I think it would be more accurate to say that the click provides information to the gymnast. I don't think there is any "reward."

[flyer]

If I recall correctly, I think it would be more accurate to say that the click provides information to the gymnast. I don't think there is any "reward."

 

Well going by the grins on the faces of some of the kids I've seen it used with when the click happens, one might think they were finding the clicks rewarding, but I suppose it is deeper than that. Yes, the click is a marker that provides information that, hey you got it right and that of course leads to the intrinsic reward of having achieved the target movement and improving one's trick.

[stockdogranch]

I don't get what any of the instances in the second quote and most of the instances in the first quote have to do with the "money for grades" thing.

I don't know about anyone else, but what *I* meant was that the students I see now are so programmed to all "rewards" (or positive experiences) being extrinsically applied, as opposed to gaining some sense of "reward" merely from the satisfaction of having done one's best, that there seems to be no sense of doing a good job for the simple sake of doing a good job. The way (I think) most of my generation was taught was that the thing to do was the best you could, no matter if you cared for the activity or not, because that was just what you did, and you would gain some satisfaction from having tried your best, whether or not you won. Remember all that stuff about not winning, but how you played the game? Oh, heck, I guess I'm just old,

A

ETA: I think this is what Eileen was saying about the young lawyers...

[Ooky]

I started decided to go back to college last year. This semester I'm in a class of mostly transfer students from the high school. There are 3 adult students in the class including myself. Half the kids in the class are texting frequently throughout class. The instructor said multiple times that he expected students to turn in a type written outline on a certain day and he still got at least 3 hand written ones and one person didn't even have one.

 

In anotherclass I had a teacher give extra credit to students who showed up on time one day when it was a little nasty. And our actual tests were only about 10% of the final grade. Pretty much any student who halfway participated got an A. I'll be avoiding any of her classes in the future. I'm taking the second semester of that subject with another teacher and enjoying it much more even though the work is harder, she expects more of her students and I'll be lucky if I end up with a B.

 

This, and what Anna described, was also my experience when I taught from 2001-2006. It literally got worse each year with each incoming class. Extra credit opportunities were *expected*. I was also expected to make notes for the students so they could follow my lectures - if I didn't, they felt justified in saying that they couldn't possibly study for the tests??? I asked them to take their OWN notes, as that is so critical to learning during lectures, and was told that that is "impossible". Some students would rarely show up, fail every quiz, not turn in homework, and then when I failed them I'd get a nasty call from a parent telling me it was MY fault. That's not allowing your kid to fail! There were good kids intermixed in, and the "regular" students just wrote those types off as geniuses or something, seeming to ignore that those kids actually saved their energy for work rather than complaining.

 

We've hired at my job (and had to fire) too from this generation, and I've seen the same problems. They expect a lot of praise and pats on the back just for merely doing what is expected of them. Taking criticism is a real problem. Meeting expectations is a problem, and finding any sort of intrinsic reward from doing their job well is just a foreign concept. Even after performing poorly at their given tasks, realizing what is their job as an entry-level person (vs. what a 20-year manager is supposed to do for example) is a struggle - because hey, they're too good for *this* stuff. As Eileen pointed out, it does seem like an impoverishment.

 

So when I read research recently that strongly suggests our society is doing this, mainly to this generation, with the +reinforcement, pro-esteem paradigms, I took notice. It makes sense to me. I don't want my kid acting like this at all - many of these kids seem so ill-equipped for real life! It makes sense to me that giving prizes for how many books you read does not, in actuality, foster a love of reading, but instead makes you read shorter books to get more prizes, that is if you even care about the prize. If you don't, why read at all - there's texting to be done! I think it is enlightening that some think it's a pretty good idea to pay for grades, and don't see how any harm could come of it, while others are a bit appalled by it.

 

I don't really know how much this is applicable to dogs, but I think some of it could well be, especially for dogs as smart as BCs. And it doesn't exactly have to be food rewards (although they are a good example), but I think the real issue is carefully metering out rewards for successes in a way that is very structured and handler focused, and only temporarily withholding rewards instead of correcting. Kristine asked in another thread why her methods seem to "offend" some of us so much, and while they don't offend me, and I have learned a lot from her, I think this discussion gets at why I feel like as much as I admire her, and believe she and other c/t, +-based trainers on this board totally outshine me as a dog trainer, I still don't want to adopt that paradigm in all or even the majority of the training I do. I don't personally think for a lot of stuff BCs need or fully benefit from carefully metered rewards and no corrections, while other breeds, species, or even autistic children might. Yes, I still c/t! But not for everything, and months will go by without me cutting up food treats or getting out the clicker while I still do other training. But it is fun, enjoyable for both me and Odin, and VERY effective for fine scale work. Yet I hope to foster a different sort of thinking dog with even some of my pet training that does not involve extrinsic treats but instead methods that will hopefully key in on tapping into that intrinsic desire and need to want to work together. Who knows how successful I am, though

 

As for the stockdog vs. pet stuff - I AM a pet owner. My training with stock is nowhere close to being necessary or a living or any of that stuff. So many of you have gone so much farther with your dogs in agility or other dogsports and achieved, I'm sure, a more fulfilling partnership than me and Odin. But my "hobby" has still allowed me to see some of this - how these dogs CAN think for themselves, and can know way more than you, the handler. I LOVE it when Odin picks out the troublesome lamb and moves his balance out of the "correct" position to let that lamb know it's not going anywhere on his watch. Control is not everything, good reactions are. And even though my livelihood doesn't depend on it, my safety (and his, and the sheep's safety) does. When he's bringing a bunch of sheep at me, with good pace, I feel just a little bit of what it is to really trust your dog to help and not hurt you (as here I am with decreasing balance skills, speed, and not wanting to fall on my stomach right now ).

[Denise Wall]

There's an good book called Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Punished-Rewards-Tro...1830&sr=1-1

 

Check it out. Interesting read.

[Ooky]

I didn't understand an earlier reference in this thread to "money for grades" as a manifestation of "political correctness," either. I would expect the politically correct (assuming you mean the good-hearted granola-crunching idealist types in Birkenstocks) to be the last people on earth to pay their kids money for good grades.

 

I said that in response to Kristine saying she didn't mean to be so "politically incorrect" by bringing it up (money for grades). The PC types you describe are the very ones who IME have bought the most into the importance of lavishing praise and heaping discreet awards on children for stuff that maybe should just be expected to build their self esteem. It was what schools started adopting in the past 20 years too, because it is in my mind a PC paradigm - how could boosting esteem be bad for kids! Compare to un-PC, older methods such as when corporal punishment was actually used in schools, and maybe my point will make more sense.

 

As an ex-teacher and current manager, I DO see the parallels between something like money for grades and the stories Anna and MAralynn (and myself) wrote. You are rewarding for something that should be expected, and cheapening an achievement that is worth so much more than money.

 

ETA, lest anyone take offense, I feel I should point out I am a tree-hugging environmentalist lefty, and have been known to wear birks on occasion.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

I remember as a young student my motivator was not treats but good grades.

 

Mom said "You must have a 3.5 average or I will sell your horse"

 

The horse never left.

[Alchemist]

Eileen asked:

 

Okay, but WHY? Why are they not appropriate for the toddler? I understand why you would not throw treats on the floor for a toddler, you don't need to explain that. I understand why you would not teach a toddler to retrieve a ball in his mouth. I understand why you would not pop treats in an adult's mouth. I understand why you would not put a toddler in a crate for a time out (although I'm not sure if you'd think it appropriate to put him in a playpen). I understand why you wouldn't give the toddler dried liver. Those are not the questions I'm asking.

 

I'm just asking about clicking and treating with a child-appropriate food treat. I know of no reason to think that the toddler does not process a click in the same portion of the brain as a dog does. Presumably, it would serve to mark the approved behavior with the utmost precision. Surely there's an age at which a very young child would quickly experience a food treat as +R, whereas "chances to earn extra play time, a special outing, access to certain toys (that are put up to keep them safe from the dogs)" would not be as readily understandable or rewarding. So why would c/t not be appropriate?

 

Sorry I seem to be harping on this, but I'd really like to know.

 

Sorry to be slow in contributing to this thread. It's most interesting. (But I've been putting in 12-hour days helping with the kids' high school robotics team, then trying to catch up on work when I get home).

 

I'll take a stab on this, as well as on the "bribe for grades/chores". (Probably shouldn't as DH is in the process of preparing our delayed Valentine's Day dinner, and I should be helping, but oh well...).

 

There are a number of reasons why treats wouldn't be appropriate feedback for children or toddlers. The most obvious one (at least in my family, where we all have to watch our weight) is that I wouldn't want my kids to begin to equate "food = comfort" at an early age such that it became ingrained to the point where they (as adults) resorted to overeating whenever they needed to boost their spirits. On a deeper level, though, children soon learn to appreciate the consequences of their actions (at least, so we hope!) at a level that I don't think would ever be realistic for us to expect of dogs. To be sure, a toddler isn't capable of that sort of reasoning, but parents are fallible (some of us more than others!), and get set in patterns. If we started treating toddlers as if they were sea mammals, we might fall into the habit and end up underestimating their ability to appreciate the entire notion of "delayed gratification". (Such appreciation is one of the big differences between humans and dogs). That would cripple any growing sense of social responsibility.

 

Should you "pay children for grades"? Several posters have commented on the pitfalls of oversubscribing to the "cult of self esteem" in humans. I share their concerns (in part because I hate teaching students who focus on grades to the exclusion of what they're learning). I'm not a big proponent of the "good job" school of discipline. Kids are savvy enough that they know when they've invested effort, and when they haven't, and if you say "good job" for what they recognize is a trivial effort, it undermines their will to invest effort. Worse, if they're constantly told how great they are, you're at the risk of ending up with kids who are arrogant, aloof. (If anyone is interested - my favorite gurus for "child-rearing philosophies" are Wendy Mogel, "The Blessing of a Skinned Knee" - and no, I'm not Jewish, but you don't need to be to appreciate the wisdom in this book; and Kim Payne, whose talks I've enjoyed on several occasions http://www.simplicityparenting.com/home.html - look on this site for his CD, "The Soul of Discipline").

 

In our household we don't pay for chores, nor do we pay for grades. Rather, everyone is expected to contribute to the running of the household, and the allowance they receive isn't tightly tied to tasks. My older son argued (when he was in fifth grade) that he needed a bigger allowance. We conceded that with increasing age, came increasing opportunities to spend money. But we also argued that with increasing age came increasing responsibilities. What did he propose to take on for his share? After some thought he decided to take over doing his own laundry. And then he decided to donate his additional allowance to a local soup kitchen. (But he still kept up doing his laundry).

 

We do celebrate great school reports by going out to dinner. Is this the same as c/t for kids? No (even though older son in particular is a real "foodie"), because it is a celebration that recognizes sustained effort. And if we see a report that is less than might be desired, I ask the child to sit down and create a table; list all the "positives" each teacher reports, and in a separate column list any "areas for improvement" - then summarize it, make a "report of the report" and concoct their own list of issues to redress (like "make sure I hand in all my assignments on time" or "contribute more to class discussion" if that seems to be a common theme).

 

I also try to concoct "consequences" for negative actions carefully. I think if parents apply disciplinary measures that seem too capricious, kids will not internalize the right message; they'll just bide their time until they can get out from under the parent's thumb. So - if a kid is spending too much time on Facebook when they claim they're doing homework, instead of saying "OK, you're restricted for a week!", or "I'm disconnecting the Internet access to that computer for a week", I say, "look, it's clear that you need to self-regulate better. How can we make this happen? If I disconnect the Internet, you don't learn self-regulation. How about I say you may NOT go with your friends on the next outing UNLESS you've demonstrated in the interim that you've resisted temptation?" (and believe me, we have our ways of checking...). Again, this sort of reasoning is so far beyond what I think anyone can expect of a dog that the thought of using similar techniques to discipline (or train - think of the origins of the word "discipline") a dog and a child boggle my mind.

 

If there's a common thread in my approach to childrearing, it's that I want my kids to try - for the sake of trying - and to appreciate the consequences of their actions. Not necessarily personal consequences, but greater consequences as well - I try to instill a sense of social responsibility. They've opted to donate the money they made last week shoveling snow to Haiti relief. (I did reward their helping a neighbor dig out by saying they could stay up extra late).

 

The two things that strike me as being in common between being a "good trainer" and being a "good parent" are (1) consistency and (2) fairness. The second is fairly abstract, though there is research that some animals have a rudimentary sense of such.

 

I can't claim to be the best parent ever. I definitely don't possess enough patience. I am sure there are those who feel we "push" our kids too hard in terms of our expectations. (Academics have a rep for being "kooky parents"). The kids have long known that some actions would result in either "sudden death" or, worse, "slow painful death". But they're both decent students with broad interests who are apparently invested in working hard in school for the love of learning alone (and not for grade-grubbing). They want to be in the accelerated classes because they view themselves as "serious scholars" who have little patience for classmates who goof off. My older son certainly isn't a 4.0 student (I'm not sure there are any such at his school), but he is an AP Distinguished Scholar (even though his school no longer offers AP classes) and just heard last week that he made National Merit Finalist. I'm less proud of these (which mainly reflect test-taking abilities) than I am of the fact that his teachers view him as a polite and respectful individual who tries his best. They've both been great at volunteering around the house while my DH was laid up following surgery.

 

As far as clicker training and treating are concerned - I can't claim to a lot of experience with clicker training. Certainly I have NO experience with working stock, though I can't begin to imagine how clicker training would be useful for that situation. I gave Duncan treats while training him in basic obedience, but only to the point where he "got" it, then I phased out the treats. He was still struggling with "heeling" in the face of distractions, though, so I was continuing to treat him for "heeling", but with little success. So I bought a clicker this past weekend and spent an evening "charging" it, clicking it and treating him. I have been struck in only two days by how pleased he seems with the improvement in his "heeling". On walks the past couple of days, I have not been asking him to heel, but I've been "clicking" him when he's been in the right position. I almost immediately saw in him that he "got it" - he would start to forge ahead, then I could see the gears turn, "oh wait - she wants me to walk next to her". He'd stop, look back at me, and grin, and wait. The grin to me meant, "I get it!". I'd reward that by clicking when he was in the right position, then treat him. I'm with Kristine - he's recognizing this as a communication tool - "so THAT's what she wants!!!!". If he continues to respond this well, I'll probably view it as a "communication breakthrough". At this point, without being asked, he's voluntarily "heeling" for at least 80% of a half-hour walk. I don't think that's bad for a pup not a year old. But, as with treats for other tricks, I'll probably phase it out as soon as it's no longer necessary. I certainly have no desire to carry a clicker with me everywhere we go henceforth. I am hoping, in the near term, that clicker training will also help temper his overexcitement when he sees other dogs.