pgm

Sidoney: I don’t see how one can say you can have theory or method without each other. At its most simple, a theory is an organised set of ideas that attempts to explain or predict something. Method, at its simplest, is an ordered way of doing something. PGM: No child requires a theory in order to master langauge. One can speak and write like a master (Shakespeare) without the slighest knowledge of theory. Knowing how language works comes from experience, not theory. Experience is enough to know how to go on in unexpected contexts – children are some of the most inventive and creative speakers. No theory is required for this. Sidoney: For some reason, pgm seems to have a particular aversion to behaviourism and/or behaviourists. Thankfully others are more open minded. PGM: Others have a more open mind? Certainly not behaviorists themselves, who have consistently ignored the results and work of actual animal trainers whose knowledge and experience have been passed down through generations. Behaviorism was developed in the laboratory in isolation from actual working trainers who were basically ignored and/or dismissed. Sidoney: To throw out behaviourism in total is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. PGM: To throw out the knowledge and experience gained over generations by working trainers is precisely the point where behaviorism began. And besides, the baby is the dog, not the theory. Sidoney: I categorically reject any idea that one can “know” what goes on in any other creature’s mind, and suggest that one can only guess, and that with dogs, the guesses are less accurate than with people. Even with language, the most complex communication tool, what one person says may be understood in a different way by the person who hears – due to many different factors, including characteristics of language itself. PGM: This is a skeptics argument, which I know in advance cannot be defeated. I cannot prove the skeptic wrong. All I will say, is one: because we can be wrong about something doesn’t mean that everything is just ‘guessing’. Secondly, one lives in a rather desperate world if all one can do is guess what another person is thinking or saying. Sidoney: While it is common for people to infer moral behaviour in dogs (“he knows he did the wrong thing/he feels guilty, just look at him”), this sets up a dangerous situation for the dogs themselves. PGM: To give a child language is a dangerous gift, for it can cause grief and untold damage. There is a story of an autistic child who was taught to speak, this child had up until this point never shown any emotional attachment to any other human being. The child was taught the meaning of ‘hug me’ - the child then sought out his brother, also an autistic child, and said ‘hug me’ – his brother ignored him, and he broke broke down and wept for the first time in his life. Some people would see this as a reason not to teach such children – they are after all not unhappy in their autism – I am not one of those people. Striving for excellence in any field of endeavour brings with it the knowledge of terror and grief. You cannot truly possess the knowledge of beauty without also the knowledge of terror – you cannot have one without the other. Sidoney: They become subjected to similar kinds of (ineffective) procedures of justice to those that are inflicted upon humans. Humans are supposed to know “right” from “wrong” and are punished for doing “wrong”. It is no secret that this is ineffective. PGM: It depends where you look for your evidence. If you are looking at the people whose upbringing (for whatever reasons) have failed them, then you will find plently of evidence for your thesis. The vast majority of people however grow up to be law abiding citizens, who have strong sense of right and wrong and do not need to be punished or reminded of their responsibilities. Furthermore, I do not, and have not, ever punished my dog. This is where the vocabulary of behaviorism is both ugly and wholly inadequate to describe what is really going on. Sidoney: I should mention, this kind of high level of motivation is needed for any dog that is asked to do anything that requires particular intensity or duration – see Sam’s post above re the scent dogs – these dogs are required to work for an extended time and may go some long time without finding the scent that brings their reward – they need to be very motivated to sustain that. PGM: Actually I have come across a number of sniffer dogs (beagles) at airports. What can I say? These dogs looked no more mature than the dogs I see at agility. Not suprisingly they are constantly being fed treats by their handlers for almost every command. I have my doubts that these dogs would work for more than 10mins without a treat. They do not impress me as an example of a trained dog. I have heard stories of tracking dogs who will follow a scent with their poor handler in tow for twenty hours or more. They don’t require anything more than the work itself to motivate. Bordercollies that are trained for sheepwork are not trained with the use of treats or play toys in order to motivate them. The work itself is more than enough. A well trained sheepdog can be sent out on its own to bring back the sheep to the handlers feet. They do not require even the handlers presence to do this, let alone to be treated every couple of mnutes.

henrynchlo, I am curious, who in this thread has described the dog as acting out of revenge?

Kuma telling your dog off when you arrive home is probably not going to help. The dog knows your angry with her but it is doubtul that she will be able to connect your displeasure with her behavior a few hours previous. If you are willing to spend the money (about $250-300) an electronic containment system (available from Innotek, check out their website) would solve this problem overnight. If you could borrow or rent out such a system it would be even better. I see your in Sydney - check out www.k9force.net He may be able to help with the rent of such a system.

Clicking Mad: I have noticed my dogs temperament change, both to being generally more happy and also a little of taking advantage of my new "no correction" style. PGM: it is an interesting question as to what people mean by happy? I was watching people train agility the other day, and whilst I would say that the dogs were quite responsive to their handlers (they were of course using treats constantly) and looked quite 'happy', their happiness to my eyes looked frivilous and immature. And I do wonder whether this outward expression of 'happiness' which resembles the behavior of a puppy is more for the sake of the handler's self esteem than for the benefit of a dog.

VPZN: "My point is why limit the concept of theory to qualifications in behavioural science, it to me is as pointless as attributing a positive or traditional status to a trainer." PGM: Let me say that that is a very good point. It is one of my frustrations (at least from the perspective I inhabit) that people appear to be incapable of appreciating the great and profound thought that is behind traditional methods. It is to do with our cultural infatuation with science, it is almost as if people do not recognize thought at all, unless it wrapped in the discourse of science. Or at least what thought there is outside the realm science, is a pale imitation of the real thing. But thought is thought wherever you find it, it does not take on a special status simply because it is wrapped in the vocabulary of science. It is rather the absense of thought that I find is most often wrapped in the garb of scientific terms. Personally, I believe that the proof of a trainer and or his or her methods begins and ends in the dog. I am inclined to say, show me your dog and I will be able to tell whether you can train or not. Show me your theory on the other hand, and all I will be able tell is whether or not you are one of Skinner's many idiot savants.

Tess32: A dog that hangs its head and runs off when you get home after it ripped up your couch 5 hours ago LOOKS guilty and if we use external cues, guilt would be the emotion I'd call that kind of behaviour. But would most experienced dog trainers conclude guilt, or just claim it is a dog that is expecting punishment and thus, acting submissively? PGM: I think you have to be experienced yes, there are differences. But a dog that hangs his head is giving some kind of cue, whether or how we interpret this is a matter of contention, but the dog is giving a cue that can be read. Tess32: Actually I think very often it comes down to the trainer's bias. A purely positive, OC fan (and that aint Orange County!) will interpret the dog very differently than a trainer who adheres to the dominance model no matter how many dogs they see. PGM: as you may have guessed by now, I have little time for theory. A person may have dozens of qualifications in behavioral science besides his/her name - it wouldn't count a fig to me. If said person also had 20-30 years experience working and training dogs then I might listen. But either way, if they started sprouting theory to me I would go somewhere else.

Sidoney: "They have emotion and sociability and lots of other things going on in there - exactly what I cannot know for sure as I can't see inside!" PGM: actually sidoney you can know what is going on inside a dog's head to same extent that you can know what going on inside a humans head. The process of understanding what another human being is thinking is the same process for a dog. Simply put, you read the external cues to infer what's going on inside. Human language is such an external cue. Of course, most of us can do this much better with humans than we can with dogs, but then most of us have infinitely more experience with humans than with dogs. We also belong to the same species with other humans, so that makes it easier as well. But whilst I do not claim this ability to read what's going on inside a dogs head, I do believe that the more experienced a trainer is, and the more experience s/he has with a wide variety of different dogs, the better they become at reading a dog's mind, and the more accurate their judgements become.

Henrynchlo, in order for my mind to open, you need to put forward an idea. So far you have put none forward... So as far as I am concerned you could for all I know be a complete idiot. Then again, my mind is still open...still waiting for you to put forward an idea Do you have any?

henrynchlo, I'm sorry I can't help it, the theory of OC is a laughing stock. Not my fault, go speak to Skinner...

In OC terms: he is responding to a cue (the other person or dog) which you have trained. Cues to behaviour don't have to come from you. His reward is to go back to what he was doing. Tabata, I have no problems with this description. So maybe you and Sidoney are correct. The only thing that I would insert in this description is that training develops the dog's understanding - hence the 'cue' would have no effect unless the dog 'understood' it as a cue.

Sidoney, Sidoney, Sidoney...how is being released a reward for his offering the behavior of his own accord? He is already free. How is giving up his freedom to come back into heel of his own accord a reward? What are you you saying?- he voluntarily gives up his freedom in order to be rewarded with freedom? But even if your interpretation is correct (and to be honest I am quite happy to accept it) the dog is making a cognitive judgement, of his own accord, from his own intitiate. His behavior in other words is self-directed. And that of course, is the goal of my training, that the dog acts in a self-directed manner appropriate to the enviroment in which he lives. Even if I accept that he is motivated by the reward that the release provides, then I am happy to give it. It is the kind of reward that I have in ready supply. It costs very little and is much more convenient than having to carry around treats all day.

Lia: I think he enjoys getting out. But I don't think he understands that the two are related. pgm: maybe not in the way we understand such matters. But I can tell what he does understand. He understands certain rules or expectations (call them manners) that are involved in going for walks. He understands for instance that whenever he sees another human or dog approaching that he is to come to heel. I know this because he often offers the behavior without any word from me. Indeed I have found myself surprised on more than one occassion to find him next to me in a perfect heel, only to look up to realise that there are people approaching. And he will stay in that position without word or praise from me until I give him the okay to go off again. I do not carry treats, I rarely if ever praise him for this behavior. He simply offers the behavior of his own accord because he understands certain expections I have of him. You can say he does this for reward. What reward? I don't give him any (once he has learnt and understood the behavior that it is - in other words, once he has been trained.)

"Do you believe you can stop rewarding the dog as the understanding alone self rewards?" The short answer to that is yes. A dog that continually requires reinforcment, whether reward or correction, does not constitute a trained dog. But that does not mean that all rewards end for the dog. It simply means that the rewards take on a different aspect. I don't reward my dog for coming to me when called, that is because he has been trained and no longer requires reinforcement. But the real reward the dog gains from this, is that he may enjoy himself at liberty and do as he pleases (within limits) without having to be on lead. Understanding brings it own rewards. The dog that understands is able to participate more fully in the social life of his owner. A happy dog is a dog that has a meaningful place and role in life. Understanding is the basis in which one is able to give the dog a meaningful place and role.

Sidoney: are you ascribing to dogs the same cognitive capabilities, and abilities to make moral and ethical judgements as children develop as they grow up? That is what your statement sounds like. PGM: I am not ascribing the same cognitive capabilities in dogs that are possessed in humans - obviously. But neither does a child have the same cognitive abilities as an adult. Do we therefore deny that children possess any cognitive abilities at all, and are therefore incapable of any understanding right from wrong? In a legal sense we limit a child's level of responsibilies - that is we recognize limitations - but we don't deny them any capacity whatsoever. Which is why it is not illegal to discipline one's children (within reason). Do I believe that dog's possess cognitive abilities? Yes I do, very much so. And I believe that such abilities (however limited they may be in relation to humans) are capable of being developed in the training relationship into an understanding of right and wrong. I believe dog's are perfectly capable of exercising cognitive judgment. Or are you saying only humans possess cognitive abilities? Some philosophers would say so - most of them having spent zilch amount of time working and training animals.

vpzn: "I wonder how this statement works. There are some activities that are self rewarding for a dog. I don't believe the dog is "yet to understand" in these instances." PGM: 'self rewarding' is the key. If the dog requires external rewards and/or corrections then it is yet to understand.

Tabata:"Can you tell me what “obedience” and “reliability” might mean to a dog, and why they would aspire to achieve them? What inherent satisfaction would a dog derive from achieving, say, a ten minute down-stay?" PGM: What reliability means to a dog, at least in the way that I think of it, is the capacity to fully participate in life with it's handler. An obedient, reliable dog gets to do many things and participate in life with his or her owner to a far greater extent than an unreliable, disobedient dog. A disobedient dog is left in the backyard, a dog that continually pulls on the lead is taken out a lot less than one that doesn't. A dog that has a reliable recall - such as mine - gets to enjoy his liberty on walks to explore and enjoy himself, rather than be onlead the whole time. An obedient dog is never yelled out, is seldom told off. An obedient dog knows his place in the world and is comfortable and confident. There are many more advantages... As to whether dogs aspire to this state of affairs, I can only say that human children do not aspire to be well-behaved anymore than dogs. That is why if they are not disciplined and given boundaries they often grow up to be insufferable adults. We discipline and educate children for the same reason as we train dogs, because we recognize that it is for THEIR long term benefit. A well brought up child is a child that is better able to enjoy the benefits and satisfactions of society - it is the same for dogs.

henrynchlo: "POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT - Anything GOOD that is added that INCREASES behaviour. POSITIVE PUNISHMENT - Anything BAD that is added that DECREASES behaviour. These are scientific facts. Please don't put your own interpretation on them." Really? Then could you please provide me with the scientific citation.

StaffordsRule: "IMO, this is placing a human value/thought process/reasoning capability onto a dog which is unfair. In short- we do these 'unenjoyable' tasks because we know what the end result will be- satisfaction and achievement. Dogs just do. PGM: With respect, your opinion doesn't count - neither does mine. It is the dog's opinion that counts. If you cannot read the dog's 'opinion' in his/her behavior and attitude then there isn't much we can say to each other. By claiming that 'dog's just do' you are denying them the capacity to even have an opinion - hence there is little chance that you will be able to see and read this opinion in your dog's body language. StaffordsRule: "In the simplest of terms, you can't tell a dog- "this will be uncomfortable for a short time, until we get to this end result". PGM: Yes that is true, but knowing that is why I don't train a dog in that fashion. The dog is never given a correction until the teaching phase is complete. Never subjected (in normal circumstances) to any discomfort until a context of understanding has been established. It is only within the context of understanding that corrections are used. As a matter of curiosity, have seen your dog happy? Isn't saying that a dog is happy placing a "human value/thought process/reasoning capability" onto the dog? Or when you see your dog wagging it's tail do you just say: look, he's 'DOING happiness'? Can a dog BE happy, or can it only DO happiness? Isn't saying a dog IS happy (as opposed to DOING happiness) being a little anthropomorhic? Do you really think that saying 'dogs just do' captures all there is to say about dogs?

Sidoney: “Dogs are capable of learning by many approaches. Any approach that is used must be consistent and, to be ethical, not harm the dog mentally or physically, rather it should be rewarding and enjoyable for the dog - and handler!” PGM: in one sense I agree with this, in another I disagree. But I appreciate your willingness to be open-hearted to different approaches. But firstly, to put it frankly, the question of ethics is entirely dependent of where you place the emphasis. Personally, if one could successfully train a dog with an electrical cattle prod I would have no objection. Likewise, if one could successfully train a dog by continually banging it over the head with a crowbar, I would likewise have no objection. This because I put the emphasis of ethics on the end result, not the process of training. (when I say emphasis, I mean I put the emphasis, not the whole of the matter). To anticipate a possible objection, what I mean by a trained dog is a confident, healthy, well balanced, obedient and reliable animal. That one could not produce such a result with a crowbar is not in dispute: I am simply saying if it were possible, I would not object. Where I disagree with other approaches is their preoccupation with the process of training over that of the result. For instance, I could give you many examples of activities that were highly satisfying and brought enormous fulfilment and sense of achievement, yet were far from ‘enjoyable’. Running a marathon for instance, could hardly be said to be ‘enjoyable’, yet achieving the end result of finishing brings enormous satisfaction to those who do. Likewise, climbing Mt Everest is a PROCESS of physical and psychological deprivation, yet brings enormous fulfilment to those that achieve the top. So much so that many do it again, knowing full well the physical and emotional suffering the process entails. Where this mentality impacts dog training is that people cannot stand even the thought of a dog suffering discomfort in the process of training. I disagree with this mentality not because suffering is good for its own sake, but because the refusal to ask anything of dog that might entail discomfort sells the dog short – sells the dog short of the inherent satisfaction that comes from achievement, even from achieving something that might be difficult. The worst and most extreme form of this mentality comes from people who say, ‘I would rather euthanize Ben [a dog] than treat him in such an abusive manner’. This is an actual quote from a clicker trainer discussing the training methods of another trainer who uses a prong collar to rehabilate dogs with aggression problems. For myself, this is unethical, to deny the dog its life simply because rehabilation might be difficult and entail some pain. This to put the process of training over and above that of the results – for me this is unethical.

Tess32: “As far as I can tell, there is nothing in OC that defines what the reward is, or what will be reinforcing to any particular animal.” PGM: True. But then please explain why so many (not necessarily yourself) ‘positive’ trainers, who rely of the theory of operant conditioning as an authoritive source for their methods, are so often downright hostile to traditional trainers who employ physical corrections as part of their methods? In other words, as you have stated, there is nothing in OC that defines what will be reinforcing to any particular animal. Because what I am saying is that physical corrections can be, and indeed are, when properly administrated in the right CONTEXT, positively reinforcing. But I find in general, that people under the influence of OC theory, cannot (will not?) understand this. And as a rule of thumb, the more infatuated they are with the theory of OC, the more hostile they are to the idea of physical corrections. Now the short answer as to why they fail to understand how corrections can indeed be positively reinforcing, is because they fail to take into account (because it plays no part in the theory) how what is going on inside the dog’s head (the way the dog itself interprets) influences the context in which reinforcement is applied. Exactly the same reinforcement can change from being positive reinforcement to positive punishment depending on the change in context. What is going on inside the dog’s head (its level of understanding) is just as influential in shaping context as anything else. Failure to understand that typically results in the kind of hostility directed at trad trainers. Tess32: “Maybe it is possible for a dog to learn without understand click = correct, but I think most come to learn it and I think that IS truly understanding. PGM: No. The point at which a dog can truly be said to ‘understand’ is when ‘click’ is no longer necessary. Tess32: “My dog will offer me behaviours now - he knows that he won't get a treat until he can figure out what I want.” PGM: so long as your dog is motivated by reward, or even just the possibility of reward, it can be said that he has YET to actually understand. This kind of thinking (not necessarily your own) is reflected in statements people make to the effect: I want my dog to come to me because he knows he will get a reward, rather than come to me because he is afraid of being corrected. In a dog that ACTUALLY understands, as opposed to one as YET to understand, reward and punishment are irrelevant. Understanding itself (as opposed to the reward/correction paradigm) is the motivating factor in behavior. In other words, motivation is internal, rather than external. Tess32: “Then I was thinking that maybe what you mean is that OC doesn't really impart "knoweldge" or understanding - it merely exists to explain why and how behaviours increase or decrease.” PGM: the problem with OC is that it does not suffice as an explanation for behavior, for it can only explain behavior in terms of external stimulus. Remember what I said about B.F. Skinner, he dismissed out of hand the INTERNAL states as having any bearing on what motivates (hence explains) behavior.

Rockstar, an ecollar would be the perfect and most effective solution for this problem, however they are expensive and you may not want to go down that route. The problem however is getting your dog to stop chasing cats fullstop. You have to think carefully about this, some methods may well be effective in controlling your dog whilst you are around but not so effective when you are not around. Controlling your dog by getting his/her attention is all well and good whilst you are present - there is no guarantee that it will work when you are not around. This is not really a difficult problem for an experienced trainer to deal with - so I would seek advice from one. And I would make sure that the trainer explained to my satisfaction how his/her method ensured the dog's behavior regardless of my presence. If they could not explain to me how their method ensured that, I would seek a different trainer.

I am sorry Rusky, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

abzndbonnie, if what your doing works and your happy with the results then by all means stick to it. But I can tell by your description - "but bonnie just got used to it in the end and quite frankly sick of it" - that you were not taught correctly. Taught correctly, the only thing that the dog gets 'used to' is staying in the heel position. But as I said, if you are happy with the results you are now getting by all means stick to what you are doing. Whatever works...

"O. lol ... Well i have tugged at the chocker chain, but only for a week or so because i found IT DOESN'T WORK." abzndbonnie, no training tool works or fails to work of its own accord. The person using it makes all the difference. Believe me, if you were instructed in its correct use, you would it find it working within a couple of 10min sessions at the very longest.

"pgm: Can I ask what method/training you believe develops the relationship to its fullest extent?" I am not going to suggest any particular method as there is more than one method that can be used. But I will say this, the difference between trainers that use operant conditioning is found in their vocabulary - they talk of shaping and modifying behavior. The trainer that I like and admire on the other hand, talks in a vocabulary that includes talk of treating dogs with dignity, developing their character and sense of responsibility, of always being fair to the dog. The difference in vocabulary is significant and signifies a great deal - but it a significance that is not always apparent to the naked eye. For instance, my dog may look up to my eyes because he loves and respects me, on the other hand he may look up to me because I have trained him to do so with food treats. Such a difference is not easily discernable to a spectator (indeed, to the behaviorist who is soley concerned with the external manifestation of behavior there is no difference at all) - but there is a difference, and a significant difference at that.