Interesting article

I don't mind the theory when the theorists can actually train dogs to do things (or not do things) and stay in behaviour under distraction - which to me, is how we know that they know the exercise :)
 
Last edited:
So many interesting posts, and many that I agree with. The relationship which we have with our dogs is such a personal matter. In a perfect world, we'd have a dog understand our language but it's more often not a case of what we say, but how we say it. Yet again, I truly believe that we need to lower our IQs and our approaches to a level which the dog will understand. There's no lead or clicker or any other tool which will do that for us. We need to look at the dog, and then ourselves

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

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

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

Alec.
 
This discussion reminds me of many many discussions I have had about foxhunting over the years. People are polarised into one camp or the other - very few people are yet to make up their minds. and once in one camp or the other people don't change. I'm out
 
Its not a case of not changing my mind, Ive tried it and get better results with other methods, I can see that it can work with some dogs but the more challenging ones need a different approach.

Its strange really when I booked my dog aggressive male Dobe into training classes(they were advertised as positive training only) I had a long telephone conversation with them about him, I held nothing back and they assured me it was a common problem and one they were used to. When I turned up for the training class and they saw him in action i was told to go and not come back, I had expected they might have said we will see you on a one to one but nothing just go and dont come back. Now if I had been made of softer stuff I might have given up but I persisted until I found the right trainer, that is why I think clicker /positive training is not the be all and end of, there are other methods.
 
I don't see any polarisation, I started with a clicker and moved to a verbal marker to free up my hands, and I base training on both operant and classical conditioning.
I do, though, believe that it is more fair to teach the dog what you don't want, as well as what you do want.
 
Just curious, do those here with children go into the deep psychological analysis of teaching them not to eat their own poo (as I'm told babies do!) or start to use the potty? I'm just an old bachelor and know nothing about such things but it does take me less than 20 minutes to teach a dog to sit -- and I don't need the help of a canine behaviourist!! If my dog growls at me, my reaction is swift and instinctive and it doesn't do it again. :)
 
I have children DryRot but I don't get your question. Toddlers do not usually eat their poo. There are different theories on potty training based both on theoretical studies about when children are psychologically and physiologically ready to learn and practical one suggesting various methods to help them learn (as well as the do nothing and it will happen when it happens camp). Similar to dog training there are a huge number of different theoretical and practical approaches to parenting. Is this what you were asking?
 
Booboos said:
I have children DryRot but I don't get your question. Toddlers do not usually eat their poo. There are different theories on potty training based both on theoretical studies about when children are psychologically and physiologically ready to learn and practical one suggesting various methods to help them learn (as well as the do nothing and it will happen when it happens camp). Similar to dog training there are a huge number of different theoretical and practical approaches to parenting. Is this what you were asking?
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By contrast my mum has recently acquired a cocker pup - he's a delightful little thing, handsome, easy to do, already looking for any opportunity to please. Though I am very fond of him I do find him dreadfully dull by comparison. :o
 
OK so not ALL breeds! There are breeds which are exceptions, of course, and amongst them would be your Sled dogs (probably all of them!), Greyhounds (mostly!), English Pointers (generally!), Bloodhounds (I would imagine), Terriers (or at least ALL of those which I've ever owned!) and there will be others. There are those breeds which have never been bred to comply. There was no need for obedience, and in some it would have been counterproductive, I suspect!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commonsense, observation, and practical experience. That's why a lot of very good and experienced trainers keep their mouths shut. They know how to do it but they can't explain how. I know when I see a beautiful sunset. I don't need a lecture on the refraction of light and the varying densities of the atmosphere due to changes of humidity. So, I'd suggest, stop trying to sound clever and confusing the novices with your scientific technospeak but try to instil a bit of common sense. That last commodity is certainly lacking and needs to be encouraged. Some hard culling amongst the pseudo scientists would be a good start! :D
 
King's Forest, Alec - waiting on final confirmation but it seems very likely that the 2016 European dryland championships will be held there. 2015 is coming to Scotland, it's a brilliant time to be involved in the sport. And yes there is still a highly renowned kennel in that area, I'd give anything to get my hands on one of their dual purpose dogs.

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

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

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

2wdq0qw.jpg
 
Totally agree with alecs post last night and dry rots earlier, there is far too much debating about what's positive and negative reinforcement, what's operant and so on, and not enough good old fashioned common sense and doing things because they work. I have malamutes which are apparently very difficult to train and although mine are just pets so not trained to the level a gun dog for example would be they all do what they are told when they are told, ie wait in front of their dinner till told they can have it, sit in front of the open front door without considering going through it unless told to and come back when called (the girls are a bit more laid back about how fast they come back but the boy acts like he is attached to a bungy line that you have just pulled) and none of them pull on a walk or need a dogmatic or any other contraption to walk them. As pets this is both the minimum and all that is expected from them.
 
Dry Rot said:
I'm sorry that I seem to have confused you. I will leave you to your technospeak. I have managed to successfully train dogs for over half a century by using common sense and an understanding of dogs without bothering with definitions even the scientists can't agree on. No wonder so many novices get confused and dog training is such a misunderstood subject.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of interest what kinds of studies and scientific papers have you found less than useful in dog training? And I don't mean random odd balls posting their views on blogs like this guy, but actual peer reviewed work in contemporary journals and academic books. Who exactly DP you feel has corrected the kinds of views on dog training that you hold through their academic work?
 
Just to clarify, my point is that discussing general purpose every day dog training problems in scientific terms does very little to help the ordinary pet owner and will only confuse him. Barbara Woodhouse, for all her faults, did far more good for dog training than the behaviourists will ever do.

If one of my dogs growls at me, my reaction is similar to that of a more dominant dog. I instantly and instinctively give the growler a whack! Exactly the same advice is given on HHO to owners who have a foal that attempts to kick a human. There is absolutely no need for the scientific jargon. It is simply common sense.
 
He's hardly a "random oddball", he and Karen Pryor popularised clicker training, even she acknowledges that, despite their differences over his use of aversives. Plus, he's trained a lot of dogs. I'd rather train my dog alongside someone who has trained a lot of different dogs successfully (and I travel a long way to do so), than someone who has written a scientific paper.
However I don't dismiss the 'basic' science that classical and operant are recognised as the main ways in which dogs learn. I don't think that's complicated at all.
 
He's a random oddball in terms of his scientific credentials. He does not have a PhD in zoology, ethology, neurobiology or any related field, he has not published in any scientific journal and he has no monographs in the academic press. He borrows the language of science, relying on facts and constructing arguments, but has none of the methodologies of decent scientific discourse. Note how his article doesn't contain a single reference to the things he claims. The reason references are drilled into any student is because they allow any reader to access source materials, read them for himself, confirm or challenge your interpretation, pick up other references, etc.

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

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

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

Rant over :)
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Anyway, that's what I think!

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

Personally speaking, my training is now going a lot better now that I understand a bit more about how dogs learn. I don't have an ology in anything and I haven't written any papers. Hope that doesn't make me a 'random oddball'!!!
 
Alec fMRIs measure, follow and display brain activity. Behavioural studies infer learning patterns from suitably designed experiments. Which scientific studies on what kinds of questions have you researched and found wanting? It would help to be specific.

Of course I appeal to science in my relationship with my children, why wouldn't I? Anything from the effects of extended breast feeding to the effectiveness of different sleep training methods to the latest suppositions on SIDS and safe co-sleeping, to the neurobiology of learning. Google scholar is my friend in everything, the Cochrane Review is the place to go for help with disciplines Ian unfamiliar with.
 
CorvusCorax said:
I think that's the point of the article....a lot of clicker trainers, or dog trainers in general, think any sort of aversive or aversion training is mutually exclusive with what they do, despite the fact they are working with animals, which, in a lot of cases, genetically inclined to tolerate discomfort.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Appropriating scientific language without taking on scientific methodology and writing authoritative sounding articles with zero content, does. You have to engage with science to claim to have its backing.
 
I think it's about the individual animal.
A quivering, noise sensitive collie, and, let's take an example on here, a working bred dog genetically inclined to be 'full of himself' and bred from dogs who have the cajones to take on an adversary, will require different handling. Some may say the latter should be bred out of existence. I strongly disagree.
Some believe they don't exist, because they just haven't met one or have had any dealings with them.

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

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

This ^^^

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

Having seen a video by the author of the original article doing the rounds on FB, I absolutely no respect for his opinion. The video shows him whacking a golden retriever puppy on the head with a rolled up towel, to stop it jumping up. He justifies it by saying it was only a towel, the dog is then scared to go near the owner - great result !
 
Also, if we think a dog's world collapses around it, if it is hit on the head with a rolled-up towel, how do we think it will it cope with fireworks, noisy kids running around, doors slamming, waiting in line for an agility run.....but those are things that dogs are exposed to, and we expect them to cope.
 
Broodle said:
Maybe to you, but not to me. For me:

Positive training = giving a stimulus that the dog enjoys

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

Simples :p
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's just not accurate I'm afraid, it doesn't matter how you interpret it.
the stimulus a dog doesn't enjoy is a 'punishment'. not read other replies so this may have been clarified sorry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top