Training treats considered as detrimental

[mtnfrank]

Pairing the sound of the chain’s links “ratcheting” to mark an undesired response, (essentially the same concept as using a clicker to mark a desired response) with a voice marker to indicate the desired response.

 

Actually technically not the same (and yes this is perhaps an academic distinction but doesn't hurt to be precise in this discussion given the amount of ... hmm... miscommunication so far)

 

Following is not argument for or against a method just a description.

 

The sound of the chain is not a marker or bridge since it is not always followed by a 'positive punishment' (i.e. something unpleasant added to reduce a behaviour). The noise has simply been 'classically conditioned' to be associated with a coming 'positive punishment'. The dog can still be learning in operant conditioning mode (hopefuly, if not that would make for one confuse dog) but the tug is not a bridge to a consequence, it is now the consequence. The voice marker after to indicate the desired behaviour is a separate chain of behaviour-consequences.

 

The sound of the clicker is a bridge since it is always followed by a primary 'positive reinforcer' (food or other). The sound of the clicker has also been 'classically conditioned' to be associated with a coming 'positive reinforcement' and the dog is also in operant conditioning mode where the consequence is not the marker but rather what follows the marker.

 

Use of the marker can be useful since it is easier to time a 'click', 'yes' or whatever it is than the actual reinforcer (or punishment).

[mtnfrank]

Mr. McCaig says that there are no 'modern or scientific' training methods.

 

I disagree. It would be quite sad if our training methods did not improve and did not improve based on empirical study. That doesn't mean that the science is settled but hopefully we understand dogs better now than 100years ago. And certainly certain practices have been shown to be more effective than others. And yes it depends on context, a working sheep dog on stock is certainly not operating under the same conditions as one learning the name of toys in a lab.

 

But, if only for common sense purposes. Doesn't it help to keep in mind the 'skinner quadrant' when training? Is there something I need to add/remove to increase a desired behaviour. Is there something I need to add/remove to decrease an undesired behaviour? Where the something can be access to rewarding activity, pressure from handler, pressure from the environment, food, toy, whatever. Or perhaps do nothing and let the behaviour extinguish?

 

I personally believe that pure R+ can't exist but that, in general, having the philosophy to think in terms of 'what do I want the dog to do' instead of 'what do I want the dog not to do' is more effective. And I wrote believe since I will admit it is not entirely rational on my part. My biggest bias might come from the fact that almost all the people I meet casually are of the second mentality and are also, in the overwhelming majority, people that don't even bother to train their dogs. While people with the first mentality are pretty much without exception people that are actively training their dog.

[Smalahundur]

Do you suppose a stock person would cope with a working collie that has repeatedly tried to take down livestock by doing “look at me” exercises? No, probably not. Because the “bang” that dog gets out of sinking its teeth into ovine extremities will not be offset by the “bang” of a treat, a game of tug or a squeaky toy.

Now the "bang" that dog gets by the application of the training stick on its head on the other hand....

[mtnfrank]

Now the "bang" that dog gets by the application of the training stick on its head on the other hand....

 

And most likely the appropriate response to that scenario. But I highly doubt handlers only train with whacking sticks. (obviously they don't, just a rethorical statement, many more lesser punishments-and rewards in their tool bag). 'Come to Jesus' moments are effective if they are not routine. If they have to be routine, probably need to rethink what is not working.

[geonni banner]

Actually technically not the same (and yes this is perhaps an academic distinction but doesn't hurt to be precise in this discussion given the amount of ... hmm... miscommunication so far)

 

Following is not argument for or against a method just a description.

 

The sound of the chain is not a marker or bridge since it is not always followed by a 'positive punishment' (i.e. something unpleasant added to reduce a behaviour). The noise has simply been 'classically conditioned' to be associated with a coming 'positive punishment'. The dog can still be learning in operant conditioning mode (hopefuly, if not that would make for one confuse dog) but the tug is not a bridge to a consequence, it is now the consequence.

 

The sound of the clicker is a bridge since it is always followed by a primary 'positive reinforcer' (food or other). The sound of the clicker has also been 'classically conditioned' to be associated with a coming 'positive reinforcement' and the dog is also in operant conditioning mode where the consequence is not the marker but rather what follows the marker.

 

Use of the marker can be useful since it is easier to time a 'click', 'yes' or whatever it is than the actual reinforcer (or punishment).

 

Your point about terminology is well-taken. I think of the "ratchet" as a marker, because it lets the dog know right away that I want something different from it than what it's doing. Snapping your fingers would work as well, if your timing was good. It does when my dog is off leash, and finger-snapping has never been followed by a "pop" or any other kind of "positive punishment." It is simply a distracting sound which says,"wait, I want something other than what you are doing."

 

I use "no" when working with dogs too, especially off-lead. I never use "no" as a chastisement, that would introduce confusion, and therefore anxiety into the training process. It is simply another way to say, "wait, I want something other than what you are doing." I tend to use "no" in situations like getting the dog to pick up a specific named toy from a pile of named toys. If she selects the wrong one I say "no," which implies that she is incorrect - not bad. It also means that she should try again. The clicker in the same situation is not employed until the correct selection is made, or at least approached. The "no" is a positive indication that the toy she has selected is not the one I want.

 

Actually, my experience in training is quite a bit different from that which uses the employment of constant corrective "pops". The distraction of the ratcheting sound alone usually causes the dog to pause in its unwanted behavior, which is then praised, and further direction is given. In skillful hands the corrective "pop" is rarely needed. The ratcheting sound alerts the dog, not so much that its doing something wrong or bad, but that something else is what's wanted. So it focuses on the handler for further information about what is being asked of it.

 

This accounts for the "tails up" worker in a choke chain, whereas the dog that is "popped" instead of being given the ratchet signal, will often be in a greater or lesser degree of anxiety about a possible "pop." The dog who is given the cue of the sound of the chain alone, is getting a message - but the message is not punitive.

[D'Elle]

Reminds me of the joke -- so well-known that I'm sure I don't need to provide the build-up -- that ends with "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

 

Well, this is not the topic of discussion here, but I have to say that this comment by the Moderator of these Boards makes me very uncomfortable.

 

I and others as well have stated that we did not see her post in the negative light in which you chose to see it, Eileen.

Root Beer has stated her position, and has reiterated how she intended her post to be taken.

Now you are.....as I see it..... calling her a liar.

It is easy to misinterpret what someone is saying when you have never met the person, and all you know of them is written words. We don't get facial expressions or tone of voice, nor do we have a history of knowing how someone speaks or how they intend the things that they say.

If we cannot take each other at our words and be civil to one another here, if in fact I risk being misinterpreted and then called a liar when I explain myself, then my comfort with this community is badly damaged if not destroyed.

 

Not long ago you misinterpreted something I had written, Eileen, and when I explained myself you understood.

Why does Root Beer not get the same consideration?

[mtnfrank]

I use "no" when working with dogs too, especially off-lead. I never use "no" as a chastisement, that would introduce confusion, and therefore anxiety into the training process. It is simply another way to say, "wait, I want something other than what you are doing."

 

The distraction of the ratcheting sound alone usually causes the dog to pause in its unwanted behavior, which is then praised, and further direction is given.

 

The dog who is given the cue of the sound of the chain alone, is getting a message - but the message is not punitive.

 

The way you describe 'no' is called a 'no reward marker' in 'clicker theory'.

 

From Karen Pryor, http://www.clickertraining.com/glossary,

"Intended to be a signal to say, “No, that isn’t what I want. Try again.” From the operant conditioning perspective, it’s intended to add a verbal cue to extinction. However, once something has been added to the situation, it’s impossible to know whether a change occurred through extinction or punishment. No reward markers usually represent an unnecessary level of complexity in a training program."

 

I'll note that the glossary entry contains both a definition (first part) and something that some will consider an opinion ('unnecessary level of complexity')

 

I see more the chain of dangling-praise as a chain of a conditionned punishment (doesn't mean it is unpleasant in itself to the dog, just that that sound has been associated with a punishment that makes him stop the behaviour) followed by a reinforcement for doing the right behaviour (calming down, looking at handler, whatever).

 

Certainly the 'hey' or 'no' the way you describe it is not 'punitive' but a 'no marker' in operant conditionning terms. The dangling of the chain.... hmmm perhaps has the same effect but I wouldn't consider it the same. Though one could argue that if the 'pop' is never (or almost never) done, then that the 'dangling' sound 'classical conditionning to a positive punishment' has been extinguished and as such is now a no-reward marker.

 

Should add that I'm using 'punition' here in the 'something that makes a behaviour decrease' sense, not necessarily in the 'whack on the buttocks' sense.

[geonni banner]

Well, this is not the topic of discussion here, but I have to say that this comment by the Moderator of these Boards makes me very uncomfortable.

 

I and others as well have stated that we did not see her post in the negative light in which you chose to see it, Eileen.

Root Beer has stated her position, and has reiterated how she intended her post to be taken.

Now you are.....as I see it..... calling her a liar.

Whoa now! That's not how I read it at all.

 

To me it was more like this.

 

Root Beer made an allusion that she could see what was happening with "dogs on choke chains." (Apologies to Root Beer for the very rough paraphrase.)

 

Others, myself included, said that her interpretation of what she saw might be faulty - hence the "lyin' eyes."

 

Eileen is not given to making rash or hurtful statements. She displays great restraint, even when chastising obstreperous yahoos like myself.

 

Think it over, I think maybe you misunderstood this humorous reference.

 

ETA. some time later... I can't believe this. Snapping at someone like me, who tends to rant first and think later is not surprising. But this is biting the hand that feeds you. Where are the people who have benefited for years from Eileen's even-handed moderation of these boards? I can only hope that the silence is the "not dignifying that with a reply" sort. Sheesh! It was a friggin' JOKE!

[Eileen Stein]

Well, this is not the topic of discussion here, but I have to say that this comment by the Moderator of these Boards makes me very uncomfortable.

 

I and others as well have stated that we did not see her post in the negative light in which you chose to see it, Eileen.

Root Beer has stated her position, and has reiterated how she intended her post to be taken.

Now you are.....as I see it..... calling her a liar.

It is easy to misinterpret what someone is saying when you have never met the person, and all you know of them is written words. We don't get facial expressions or tone of voice, nor do we have a history of knowing how someone speaks or how they intend the things that they say.

If we cannot take each other at our words and be civil to one another here, if in fact I risk being misinterpreted and then called a liar when I explain myself, then my comfort with this community is badly damaged if not destroyed.

 

Not long ago you misinterpreted something I had written, Eileen, and when I explained myself you understood.

Why does Root Beer not get the same consideration?

 

Huh? Could it be that you haven't heard the joke I'm quoting from?

 

Let's cast this another way, one that you might find more congenial. Suppose X posts a video in which he corrects a dog in a certain way. Y comments that the correction is too harsh, because she can see that the dog has reacted badly to the correction and has shut down. X, who sees it differently, replies that he did not give a harsh correction and the dog has not shut down. Perhaps others join in and say that they did not see any harshness or any shut-down either. Y replies by referring to the joke in which a husband, found by his wife in bed with another woman, says, "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" By this reference, Y is saying that she sees something to be true which she cannot discount just because X -- who may or may not be seeing it -- says it's not true. Just because the word "lying" appears in the quote doesn't mean Y is calling X a liar. The husband in the joke is not accusing his wife of lying.

 

So it seems that you've now misinterpreted something I've written. I hope this explanation clears up how I intended my post to be taken, and that you will take me at my word and be reassured.

[Root Beer]

To me it was more like this.

 

Root Beer made an allusion that she could see what was happening with "dogs on choke chains." (Apologies to Root Beer for the very rough paraphrase.)

 

Others, myself included, said that her interpretation of what she saw might be faulty - hence the "lyin' eyes."

 

Clarification:

 

This is what I said. It is a direct quote from my post:

 

 

That point of view is going to be influenced by many factors: the trainer's prior experience with training (those who have successfully trained without such use of a chain are going to view the matter very differently from a trainer who has only been successful through use of a chain), the effect that the trainer has seen the device have on dogs in real time (again, those who have seen clear negative effects will view the matter differently from those who have been satisfied with what they have seen), and often plain and simple reasonable deduction (one does not have to have used any particular device in order to weigh the potential benefits, risks, pro's, cons, alternatives, etc).

 

From there it went into a debate about whether or not I was making value judgements. It was on that point that Eileen chose not to take me on my word.

 

I'm not sure how a general statement, pointing out that a trainer's point of view on choke chains is going to be influenced by that trainer's background experience, observations, and deductive reasoning, and whether or not acknowledging that fact is, or is not, a value judgement turned into what I see "happening with dogs on choke chains" (I did not address my own particular observations of dogs on choke chains within the context of this discussion, nor any on this board in my recollection, at all). I hope that clears up that particular misunderstanding.

 

I am a very straightforward person and I have absolutely no reason to lie, nor to misrepresent my own position, on a public internet forum.

 

That's about all I can say on the matter. Take it or leave it.

[D'Elle]

Huh? Could it be that you haven't heard the joke I'm quoting from?

 

Let's cast this another way. Suppose X posts a video in which he corrects a dog in a certain way. Y comments that the correction is too harsh, because she can see that the dog has reacted badly to the correction and has shut down. X, who sees it differently, replies that he did not give a harsh correction and the dog has not shut down. Perhaps others join in and say that they did not see any harshness or any shut-down either. Y replies by referring to the joke in which a husband, found by his wife in bed with another woman, says, "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" By this reference, Y is saying that she sees something to be true which she cannot discount just because X -- who may or may not be seeing it -- says it's not true. Just because the word "lying" appears in the quote doesn't mean Y is calling X a liar. The husband in the joke is not accusing his wife of lying.

 

So it seems that you've now misinterpreted something I've written. I hope this explanation clears up how I intended my post to be taken, and that you will take me at my word and be reassured.

 

Um, no.....I admit I have never heard that joke. And, whether due to ignorance or stupidity I couldn't say, but I am afraid I read the above several times and didn't get the joke. I don't usually lack a sense of humor, but perhaps I am having a momentary lapse.

[GentleLake]

^^And I thought it was just me.

 

At least I'm in good company.

[Eileen Stein]

D'Elle, I don't think it matters whether you get the joke or not. This whole little byway is about how some people see things which others can't, don't or won't. Surely we are all familiar with that phenomenon.

 

You wrote that "my comfort with this community is badly damaged if not destroyed." I elaborated in the hope of restoring your damaged/destroyed comfort. My explanation either restored your comfort with the community or it didn't -- that's for you to decide.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I have noted how similar these theoretical training arguments are to religious arguments. Unsurprisingly, those who know they're right don't see any quasi-religious elements and, as they will tell you,their methods are (pick one or more) kinder, scientific, modern, sensitive, effective, quickest . . .)and have worked, without fail, for all their dogs.

 

 

Ecumenical Donald

[JohnLloydJones]

Dear Doggers,

 

I have noted how similar these theoretical training arguments are to religious arguments. Unsurprisingly, those who know they're right don't see any quasi-religious elements and, as they will tell you,their methods are (pick one or more) kinder, scientific, modern, sensitive, effective, quickest . . .)and have worked, without fail, for all their dogs.

 

 

Ecumenical Donald

What is the most widespread general error that prevents people from acquiring the rational and/or correct understanding of problems?

 

My answer is that a vast majority of people constrain themselves by dogmas, assumptions, group think, and stereotypes – while they should try hard to impartially look for the answers to all the relevant questions.

[Luboš Motl writes at motls.blogspot.com-- warning to the math-averse: his blog is heavy in advance maths. ]

[Root Beer]

Donald McCaig, on 11 Jan 2014 - 06:28, said:

 

 

I have noted how similar these theoretical training arguments are to religious arguments. Unsurprisingly, those who know they're right don't see any quasi-religious elements and, as they will tell you,their methods are (pick one or more) kinder, scientific, modern, sensitive, effective, quickest . . .)and have worked, without fail, for all their dogs.

 

"I have used this method with "x" dogs under these circumstances, this is how I carried the training out, this is how long it took, these were the results . . ."

 

Still not seeing a "religious" argument there.

[Ooky]

That's not the reason it's coming off as religious/dogmatic. It is because nothing have written (or gentle lake, mum24) has even allowed for the possibility that methods using certain negatives (or a judiciously applied choke in particular) could be better for certain dog-handler methods than the ones you personally prefer. You've essentially categorically refused to consider others' own POV or personal experience with every response.

 

Mum24 essentially attacked Mr. McCaig's training methods ad hominem (ref to full cruel range of Koehler methods, already described by others in this thread as involving such abuse as taping puppies' mouths shut), and insisted again that readers should be assured HER training methods are super, and also objected to the supposed lack of political correctness of even using religious as an adjective. This struck me as not just dogmatic rhetoric, not intended to truly discuss and engage another person in an open-minded fashion, but also rather disrespectful. On the side of the "agnostics", however, skins seem a little thicker.

[JohnLloydJones]

On the side of the "agnostics", however, skins seem a little thicker.

Could it be that those who aren't heavily committed to a dogma have less reason to feel they need to defend their views?

[Root Beer]

You've essentially categorically refused to consider others' own POV or personal experience with every response.

 

Actually, it may surprise you to learn that I have spent more time than you will ever know very carefully considering the point of view of trainers who incorporate correction into their training to one degree or another.

 

(Just to be clear - I am stating this matter of factly, not defensively. I realize it could easily be read as an emotional defensive response, but I really am just stating a fact in a pleasant tone in the course of normal discussion)

 

The fact that some (including myself) maintain a point of view on corrective training devices that remains different from those who embrace their use does not somehow equate lack of consideration of their point of view or personal experience.

 

I run into that perception quite a lot, actually, and on both sides of the debate, and it is a fallacy.

[Root Beer]

Could it be that those who aren't heavily committed to a dogma have less reason to feel they need to defend their views?

 

Or it could be that an attempt to clear up misconceptions, discuss the topic at hand (topic: is the use of food detrimental to training) based on observable results, and actively engage in discussion with those who hold a different position is being interpreted as "thin skin".

[JohnLloydJones]

Or it could be that an attempt to clear up misconceptions, discuss the topic at hand (topic: is the use of food detrimental to training) based on observable results, and actively engage in discussion with those who hold a different position is being interpreted as "thin skin".

It is my understanding that "thin skin"ed is being used when the respondent reacts not to what was written, but to the most negative possible reading. Essentially setting up a "straw man" argument.

[Shetlander]

You've essentially categorically refused to consider others' own POV or personal experience with every response.

I saw Kristine saying she did not want to use those techniques, herself. I bet she has considered those POV's previously, possibly held those POV's but they don't work for her.

 

ETA while I was assembling my thoughts, Kristine confirmed this herself.

Mum24 essentially attacked Mr. McCaig's training methods ad hominem (ref to full cruel range of Koehler methods, already described by others in this thread as involving such abuse as taping puppies' mouths shut),

Well, I did not see Donald actually describe his training methods, but he kept referring to religious dogmas and even "lies" and also "marketing." He never said what he thought about the Lhasa I witnessed being jerked so hard it literally did somersaults in the air, other than to mention HORROR stories and WICKED trainers, which struck me as mocking. I don't know if he thinks I was lying or thinks the story is irrelevant. Because I have always respected Donald on these boards and reading his books and I usually enjoyed his comments, I am going to believe he would not condone that long ago Lhasa's treatment. I honestly (if one can believe me) can't imagine he mistreats his dogs. To me, the most obvious thing thing in all this debate, is how much we all love our dogs, put great thought into how we train and live with them and value our relationships with them.

 

And for the record, all of my dogs have worn choke chains as part of their obedience training (along with -gasp- treats and toys). I understand the range of corrections out there. I also know happy, well-mannered Koehler based trained dogs but not all Koehler techniques are what I consider humane or the most effective (for me).

On the side of the "agnostics", however, skins seem a little thicker

Who do you see as the agnostics? I have seen a number of people feeling their words have been misinterpreted and not just those who are positive reinforcement based.

[geonni banner]

Terrierman hits the nail on the head today...

check out the blog today

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/

[rushdoggie]

Terrierman hits the nail on the head today...

Positive reinforcement.jpg

check out the blog today

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/

If the nail is about misinterpreting what a training method is about, then yes he certainly did.

[Shetlander]

If the nail is about misinterpreting what a training method is about, then yes he certainly did.

 

Now, now. Don't go being thin skinned about your religion.